Jpost analysis/ Netanyahu's trouble free first Year far better than '96
(Jpost-Gill Hoffman).Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu enjoyed a much more trouble-free first year in office than in his first term as prime minister, veteran Netanyahu observers said, ahead of Wednesday’s anniversary of the February 10, 2009, election.
A year after the May 29, 1996, election, Netanyahu had already clashed with Likud rivals Ariel Sharon, David Levy and Bennie Begin, signed the divisive Hebron Accord, and opened up an exit to the Western Wall tunnel that led to skirmishes with Palestinians that killed 14 IDF soldiers.
Begin resigned to protest the Hebron Accord and later left the Likud, while hawks formed the “Force 17” lobby that hounded Netanyahu.
This time around, he has had no serious problems inside his coalition and the party that came closest to splitting up was Kadima.
While the first-term Netanyahu battled against the justice system and the elites, this time around, he has carefully avoided confrontation and formed a national-unity government that prevented the Left from targeting him.
“There is no comparison between the difficult coalition he had last time and the easy one he has now,” said Government Services Minister Michael Eitan, who served as coalition chairman in Netanyahu’s first term. “Labor has proven to be a strategic ally, Netanyahu has shown that he has learned key lessons, and there is no candidate threatening Netanyahu in or out of the party.”
Eitan said that had there been a national-unity government with Labor in the first term, the Western Wall tunnel incident would not have escalated and lives would have been saved. He said that Netanyahu later wanted to form such a government but it was too late.
Veteran political commentator Shalom Yerushalmi said Netanyahu’s handling of the stories about his wife, Sara, proved that the only important lesson the prime minister had not learned was that it is not smart to spar with the press.
“He is a political Mother Theresa compared to back then,” Yerushalmi said. “Last time, he incited against the Left and picked fights, but now he is the opposite. He castrated the Likud Central Committee that gave him problems. And he learned to appreciate his political base on the Right.”
Polls published in honor of the anniversary found that the Likud is gaining strength. A Smith Research poll published on Ynet predicted that Netanyahu’s party would rise from 27 Knesset seats to 32, at Kadima’s expense. A Dialog poll in Haaretz also put the number at 32 seats, but found that Netanyahu had a negative job approval rating for the first time this term.
Labor gained from six seats in the last Dialog poll to nine in the current one. Labor chairman Ehud Barak joked in closed conversations that if his party continued such gains in every poll, Labor would eventually return to power.
Coalition chairman Ze’ev Elkin said that in his second year, Netanyahu would face challenges on matters of religion and state, economic reforms and changing the political system.
He said that after a year of not losing a Knesset vote in which the Likud participated, the real challenge was keeping that track record going.
“This coalition is stronger than any there has been in years, so if we continue on this way, we could end up serving four years and maybe even finish out our term and last until November 2013,” Elkin said.
Opposition leader Tzipi Livni of Kadima said the reason why Netanyahu’s coalition was stable was that he had not accomplished anything and that he made his political survival his main goal.
“He really has nothing to celebrate,” she said.
A year after the May 29, 1996, election, Netanyahu had already clashed with Likud rivals Ariel Sharon, David Levy and Bennie Begin, signed the divisive Hebron Accord, and opened up an exit to the Western Wall tunnel that led to skirmishes with Palestinians that killed 14 IDF soldiers.
Begin resigned to protest the Hebron Accord and later left the Likud, while hawks formed the “Force 17” lobby that hounded Netanyahu.
This time around, he has had no serious problems inside his coalition and the party that came closest to splitting up was Kadima.
While the first-term Netanyahu battled against the justice system and the elites, this time around, he has carefully avoided confrontation and formed a national-unity government that prevented the Left from targeting him.
“There is no comparison between the difficult coalition he had last time and the easy one he has now,” said Government Services Minister Michael Eitan, who served as coalition chairman in Netanyahu’s first term. “Labor has proven to be a strategic ally, Netanyahu has shown that he has learned key lessons, and there is no candidate threatening Netanyahu in or out of the party.”
Eitan said that had there been a national-unity government with Labor in the first term, the Western Wall tunnel incident would not have escalated and lives would have been saved. He said that Netanyahu later wanted to form such a government but it was too late.
Veteran political commentator Shalom Yerushalmi said Netanyahu’s handling of the stories about his wife, Sara, proved that the only important lesson the prime minister had not learned was that it is not smart to spar with the press.
“He is a political Mother Theresa compared to back then,” Yerushalmi said. “Last time, he incited against the Left and picked fights, but now he is the opposite. He castrated the Likud Central Committee that gave him problems. And he learned to appreciate his political base on the Right.”
Polls published in honor of the anniversary found that the Likud is gaining strength. A Smith Research poll published on Ynet predicted that Netanyahu’s party would rise from 27 Knesset seats to 32, at Kadima’s expense. A Dialog poll in Haaretz also put the number at 32 seats, but found that Netanyahu had a negative job approval rating for the first time this term.
Labor gained from six seats in the last Dialog poll to nine in the current one. Labor chairman Ehud Barak joked in closed conversations that if his party continued such gains in every poll, Labor would eventually return to power.
Coalition chairman Ze’ev Elkin said that in his second year, Netanyahu would face challenges on matters of religion and state, economic reforms and changing the political system.
He said that after a year of not losing a Knesset vote in which the Likud participated, the real challenge was keeping that track record going.
“This coalition is stronger than any there has been in years, so if we continue on this way, we could end up serving four years and maybe even finish out our term and last until November 2013,” Elkin said.
Opposition leader Tzipi Livni of Kadima said the reason why Netanyahu’s coalition was stable was that he had not accomplished anything and that he made his political survival his main goal.
“He really has nothing to celebrate,” she said.
Netanyahu: Close to resuming Proximity talks, however Direct talks are a must for core issues negotiations
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday told European officials that he would consider releasing Palestinian prisoners when Middle East peace talks resume.
"We are prepared to do many things to improve the quality of life in Judea and Samaria,But we first expect some movement on the Palestinian side."
"We are weighing releasing prisoners, but as you know, this is a sensitive issue in Israel because of the subject of [abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier] Gilad Shalit,The matter depends on political movement from the Palestinian side."
Netanyahu did not specify whether the release of prisoners would take place in conjunction with indirect negotiations with Palestinians or as part of direct talks.
Netanyahu said that Israel and the Palestinians are very close to resuming "proximity talks," or indirect negotiations. "We are discussing the structure and the time-frame of the negotiations with the Americans,".
However "It is impossible to deal with the core issues of a peace agreement without direct negotiations."
"We are prepared to do many things to improve the quality of life in Judea and Samaria,But we first expect some movement on the Palestinian side."
"We are weighing releasing prisoners, but as you know, this is a sensitive issue in Israel because of the subject of [abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier] Gilad Shalit,The matter depends on political movement from the Palestinian side."
Netanyahu did not specify whether the release of prisoners would take place in conjunction with indirect negotiations with Palestinians or as part of direct talks.
Netanyahu said that Israel and the Palestinians are very close to resuming "proximity talks," or indirect negotiations. "We are discussing the structure and the time-frame of the negotiations with the Americans,".
However "It is impossible to deal with the core issues of a peace agreement without direct negotiations."
A Bulldozer - Foreign Ministry: Lieberman has met with 155 world officials
Ynet is publishing for the first time data revealed by the Foreign Ministry, according to which Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has already met with 155 heads of state, foreign ministers, defense ministers, and heads of international organizations such as the UN and the European Union since he took office a year ago.
"He has woven good relationships with many of the world's foreign ministers, which came in handy in the vote on the Goldstone report as well as the battle against the Swedish initiative," a ministry official said.
"He has woven good relationships with many of the world's foreign ministers, which came in handy in the vote on the Goldstone report as well as the battle against the Swedish initiative," a ministry official said.
Nuclear Experts: Sanctions unlikely to succeed as Iran's enrichment is well underway
(Ynet).Nuclear experts told Ynet Tuesday evening that it was not likely Western powers would succeed in imposing the sanctions extolled by Obama, in light of China's known stance.
Ephraim Asculai, a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), said Iran was well on its way to achieving nuclear prowess.
"From the moment they have enriched uranium to 20-percent purity, most of the work in achieving a military level of enrichment has been completed, and the distance left is not significant," he said.
"However it may very well be a method of defiance aimed at pressuring the West," Asculai added. "It is a very serious step, and should have been prevented long ago."
Emily Landau, also a senior researcher at the INSS, agrees China would make it nearly impossible to impose sanctions through the UN. However she also believes the West will have trouble imposing private sanctions on Iran.
"The option of sanctions outside the Security Council exists, but they keep saying 'soon' and we have not yet seen any steps taken," she told Ynet.
Landau added that the US would not likely impose sanctions either. "President Obama has decided he will only act within a multi-sided framework. He has reservations about imposing sanctions privately, and if he doesn't do so soon, they will not be effective in any case," she concluded.
Ephraim Asculai, a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), said Iran was well on its way to achieving nuclear prowess.
"From the moment they have enriched uranium to 20-percent purity, most of the work in achieving a military level of enrichment has been completed, and the distance left is not significant," he said.
"However it may very well be a method of defiance aimed at pressuring the West," Asculai added. "It is a very serious step, and should have been prevented long ago."
Emily Landau, also a senior researcher at the INSS, agrees China would make it nearly impossible to impose sanctions through the UN. However she also believes the West will have trouble imposing private sanctions on Iran.
"The option of sanctions outside the Security Council exists, but they keep saying 'soon' and we have not yet seen any steps taken," she told Ynet.
Landau added that the US would not likely impose sanctions either. "President Obama has decided he will only act within a multi-sided framework. He has reservations about imposing sanctions privately, and if he doesn't do so soon, they will not be effective in any case," she concluded.
Obama: Working on new sanctions for Iran; "World is unified around Iran's misbehavior in this area."
(Reuters).President Barack Obama said on Tuesday a new push toward international sanctions against Iran is moving along fairly quickly and should be completed in the next few weeks.
In an impromptu news conference, Obama provided his most extensive comments about Iran in weeks, saying that despite Tehran's denials it is clear to him that Iran is pursuing a path toward "nuclear weaponization."
He said the international community is looking at a significant regime of sanctions that will provide a "variety of ways" to apply pressure to Iran's government, without detailing them.
Obama said the United States is confident the world is "unified around Iran's misbehavior in this area."
"How China operates at the Security Council as we pursue sanctions is something we're going to have to see," he said.
In an impromptu news conference, Obama provided his most extensive comments about Iran in weeks, saying that despite Tehran's denials it is clear to him that Iran is pursuing a path toward "nuclear weaponization."
He said the international community is looking at a significant regime of sanctions that will provide a "variety of ways" to apply pressure to Iran's government, without detailing them.
Obama said the United States is confident the world is "unified around Iran's misbehavior in this area."
"How China operates at the Security Council as we pursue sanctions is something we're going to have to see," he said.
Ynet Poll: A year after, no regrets - Likud gains strength as result of Netanyahu's Security and Economic policies
(Attila Somfalvi-Ynet).A year after general elections, the Israeli public is overall pleased – or at least is not seeking any changes, a poll carried out by the Smith Institute and Ynet revealed Tuesday.
Support for Likud, the leading party, continues to grow, and it is at the top of a strong and stable right-wing bloc. The Left and Center parties are shifting between themselves the few seats they have, and the most popular political personality is Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar – despite the lack of public satisfaction with the education system as a whole.
The survey shows that if general elections to the Knesset were to be held today, the Likud party would gain strength and win 32 seats, compared to the 27 it received in last year's election.
Kadima would lose two seats, and go down from 28 to 26. Yisrael Beiteinu would remain relatively stable, losing only one seat, going down from 15 to 14. The Labor party is in dire straits: Despite relative satisfaction with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the party he leads came up under the 10-seat threshold in this week's survey, and won only 8 seats.
Shas' maintains its stability, as do most of the other parties. The only party to experience a certain boost is Meretz, which received in the poll 5 seats, compared to the 3 it won in last year's election.
The survey also shows that only 60% of Kadima's voters believe they would vote for the party again if elections were held today, and only 70% of Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu voters could say for certain that they would continue to support their respective parties.
But Labor is served the biggest blow in this week's poll, as only 37% of the people who voted for it last year say they would do so again. Some 16% are considered "swing votes", with half of them having voted for Kadima, Labor or Meretz.
The Yedioth survey said Netanyahu's security and economic policy had helped to boost his popularity among Israelis. But the poll showed a measure of dissatisfaction over a stalemate in peace efforts with the Palestinians.
The surprising results of the survey show that the Israeli electorate seems to be looking ahead, to the next generation of leaders. It is quietly seeking an alternative, someone to replace the veteran guard one day.
As a result, the big winner is Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar. The Tel Avivian minister, who combines Likud values, political moderation and lightheartedness, who charms the next generation, was voted the most successful minister out of the many ministers in the Netanyahu government.
Sa'ar bypassed his comrades in the poll, and was elected by 12% of the respondents as the most successful minister.
To the question "Which issue was best handled by the government," 16% percent responded that the security issue was best dealt with, while 12% said they think defense issues were not properly addressed.
However, the one subject that the public is most dissatisfied with is education, despite the fact that the education minister was ranked the most popular. Only 4% of the public is satisfied with the government's treatment of the subject, and 19% believe that education is the area most poorly addressed by the government.
Support for Likud, the leading party, continues to grow, and it is at the top of a strong and stable right-wing bloc. The Left and Center parties are shifting between themselves the few seats they have, and the most popular political personality is Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar – despite the lack of public satisfaction with the education system as a whole.
The survey shows that if general elections to the Knesset were to be held today, the Likud party would gain strength and win 32 seats, compared to the 27 it received in last year's election.
Kadima would lose two seats, and go down from 28 to 26. Yisrael Beiteinu would remain relatively stable, losing only one seat, going down from 15 to 14. The Labor party is in dire straits: Despite relative satisfaction with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the party he leads came up under the 10-seat threshold in this week's survey, and won only 8 seats.
Shas' maintains its stability, as do most of the other parties. The only party to experience a certain boost is Meretz, which received in the poll 5 seats, compared to the 3 it won in last year's election.
The survey also shows that only 60% of Kadima's voters believe they would vote for the party again if elections were held today, and only 70% of Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu voters could say for certain that they would continue to support their respective parties.
But Labor is served the biggest blow in this week's poll, as only 37% of the people who voted for it last year say they would do so again. Some 16% are considered "swing votes", with half of them having voted for Kadima, Labor or Meretz.
The Yedioth survey said Netanyahu's security and economic policy had helped to boost his popularity among Israelis. But the poll showed a measure of dissatisfaction over a stalemate in peace efforts with the Palestinians.
The surprising results of the survey show that the Israeli electorate seems to be looking ahead, to the next generation of leaders. It is quietly seeking an alternative, someone to replace the veteran guard one day.
As a result, the big winner is Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar. The Tel Avivian minister, who combines Likud values, political moderation and lightheartedness, who charms the next generation, was voted the most successful minister out of the many ministers in the Netanyahu government.
Sa'ar bypassed his comrades in the poll, and was elected by 12% of the respondents as the most successful minister.
To the question "Which issue was best handled by the government," 16% percent responded that the security issue was best dealt with, while 12% said they think defense issues were not properly addressed.
However, the one subject that the public is most dissatisfied with is education, despite the fact that the education minister was ranked the most popular. Only 4% of the public is satisfied with the government's treatment of the subject, and 19% believe that education is the area most poorly addressed by the government.
Netanyahu to EU diplomats: Crippling Iran sanctions needed now
(Haaretz).Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for immediate and "crippling" sanctions against Iran on Tuesday, just as the Islamic Republic began its production of higher-grade nuclear fuel.
"Iran is racing forward to produce nuclear weapons in brazen defiance of the international community. The international community must decide if it is serious about neutralizing this threat to Israel, the region and the entire world. I believe what's required right now is tough action from the international community. This means not partial and moderate sanctions, or water downed sanctions, this means crippling sanctions and these sanctions must be applied right now." Netanyahu told European diplomats that dealt only with the Iranian issue.
"This means crippling sanctions and these sanctions must be applied right now," he declared, adding that Iran's nuclear development was being carried out in "brazen defiance" of the international community. "What is required is a lot more than words."
"Iran is racing forward to produce nuclear weapons in brazen defiance of the international community. The international community must decide if it is serious about neutralizing this threat to Israel, the region and the entire world. I believe what's required right now is tough action from the international community. This means not partial and moderate sanctions, or water downed sanctions, this means crippling sanctions and these sanctions must be applied right now." Netanyahu told European diplomats that dealt only with the Iranian issue.
"This means crippling sanctions and these sanctions must be applied right now," he declared, adding that Iran's nuclear development was being carried out in "brazen defiance" of the international community. "What is required is a lot more than words."
Monday, February 8, 2010
12 arrested for disrupting Ambassador Oren at UCI lecture
(collegelife.freedomblogging).Twelve people were arrested this evening during a raucous lecture at UC Irvine where Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren came to talk about U.S.-Israel relations.
Oren was interrupted 10 times while trying to give his speech before 500 people at the UCI Student Center, where there was heavy security. Oren took a 20 minute break after the fourth protest, asked for hospitality and resumed his speech, only to be interrupted again by young men yelling at him every few minutes. Many members of the audience also applauded Oren.
After the 10th interruption, several dozens students who opposed Oren’s talk got up and walked out and staged a protest outside. s.
Oren continued talking, completing his speech at 6:42 p.m. Originally, he planned to take questions from the audience. But that wpicture-2as canceled after the repeated delays.The second person yelled about “Zionism.”The third yelled, “Israel.” The fourth could not be clearly heard.
UCI Police Chief Paul Henisey said it is not clear whether any of the protesters are UCI students.
Petracca lost his temper and yelled, “This is embarrassing … Shame on all of you.”
UCI Chancellor Michael Drake also told the audience that he was embarrassed by the outburst.
Oren was interrupted 10 times while trying to give his speech before 500 people at the UCI Student Center, where there was heavy security. Oren took a 20 minute break after the fourth protest, asked for hospitality and resumed his speech, only to be interrupted again by young men yelling at him every few minutes. Many members of the audience also applauded Oren.
After the 10th interruption, several dozens students who opposed Oren’s talk got up and walked out and staged a protest outside. s.
Oren continued talking, completing his speech at 6:42 p.m. Originally, he planned to take questions from the audience. But that wpicture-2as canceled after the repeated delays.The second person yelled about “Zionism.”The third yelled, “Israel.” The fourth could not be clearly heard.
UCI Police Chief Paul Henisey said it is not clear whether any of the protesters are UCI students.
Petracca lost his temper and yelled, “This is embarrassing … Shame on all of you.”
UCI Chancellor Michael Drake also told the audience that he was embarrassed by the outburst.
Why is Livni afraid of the Bill to allow Israeli's to vote Worldwide?
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to submit a bill allowing all Israeli citizens to vote abroad. "It will contribute to the connection and to Israel's strength," Netanyahu said during a Likud faction meeting on Monday.
Opposition leader Tzipi Livni criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to submit a bill allowing all Israeli citizens to vote abroad, saying such a bill "would not be an expression of democracy."
Speaking to Ynet Monday night, the Kadima chairwoman hinted that the bill was aimed at garnering more support for the rightist bloc in the next elections, adding that she plans to lead a public campaign against the initiative.
"This law is immoral. Netanyahu has yielded to (Yisrael Beitenu chairman Avigdor) Lieberman's demands. This is the same Netanyahu who failed in the previous elections and needed a bloc in order to form a coalition. This initiative is a continuation of the government's efforts to secure a political majority," she said.
"Elections in Israel are about Israel's character and future. Such decisions should lie with those who live here," she claimed.
Livni's fear of such a bill is like a slap in her face and putting to sleep her bid to become Prime Minister , as a sign of the increase of support to the right in Israel was reported , a Dialogue poll conducted for Haaretz last week. According to the poll, Likud would rise from 27 seats to 35, while Labor and Kadima would drop from 13 to 9 and 28 to 25 respectively. The left-wing/Arab bloc as a whole would decline from its present 55 seats to 48, while the right-wing/religious parties would increase from 65 to 72.
Via The Jewish conservative:
Opposition leader Tzipi Livni criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to submit a bill allowing all Israeli citizens to vote abroad, saying such a bill "would not be an expression of democracy."
Speaking to Ynet Monday night, the Kadima chairwoman hinted that the bill was aimed at garnering more support for the rightist bloc in the next elections, adding that she plans to lead a public campaign against the initiative.
"This law is immoral. Netanyahu has yielded to (Yisrael Beitenu chairman Avigdor) Lieberman's demands. This is the same Netanyahu who failed in the previous elections and needed a bloc in order to form a coalition. This initiative is a continuation of the government's efforts to secure a political majority," she said.
"Elections in Israel are about Israel's character and future. Such decisions should lie with those who live here," she claimed.
Livni's fear of such a bill is like a slap in her face and putting to sleep her bid to become Prime Minister , as a sign of the increase of support to the right in Israel was reported , a Dialogue poll conducted for Haaretz last week. According to the poll, Likud would rise from 27 seats to 35, while Labor and Kadima would drop from 13 to 9 and 28 to 25 respectively. The left-wing/Arab bloc as a whole would decline from its present 55 seats to 48, while the right-wing/religious parties would increase from 65 to 72.
Via The Jewish conservative:
More important in the poll, however, was the DISAPPROVAL of Netanyahu despite his party’s growing support. The primary reason given? His freezing of settlement construction in the West Bank.
Since his turn to the left, his numbers, which had stayed comfortably in the high-50s to low-60s, have for the first time sunk below 50% and are lower than his disapproval rating. .
This seemingly innocuous bill, which was first proposed by Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party and fixed as a basis of their coalition agreement, augurs major change for Israeli politics.
Israel, unlike the US, has hitherto prohibited all voting outside of the state, except for consular workers and other government positions overseas. This was a natural outgrowth of the feeling in the early days of the state that Israelis who leave the country were abandoning it and the Jewish people. Today, however, Lieberman and Netanyahu see it as an untapped source of electoral strength.
It is estimated that close to 1 million Israeli citizens live overseas, the overwhelming majority of them Jewish. These expatriates, who usually left for economic reasons, tend towards the right politically, and represent a potential voting bloc for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu.
Their inclusion in Israeli elections would go along way in nullifying the electoral power of Israeli Arabs, who constitute about 22% of the country but only a tiny percent of Israeli expatriates. Currently their vote is split roughly 50-50 between Arab parties and the left.
If and when this bill will pass, it will likely be the final death-null for the already battered Israeli left. Meretz, the furthest to the left, will probably be the first to go, and may not survive the next election cycle.
Sheldon Adelson: Israel's Media are Dictatorial, Fox News is my Model for "Fair and Balanced" coverage
(IsraelNN.com) Businessman Sheldon Adelson, the publisher of the Yisrael HaYom newspaper, fired a loud broadside over the decks of rival newspapers Sunday evening, accusing them of "dictatorial" practices. He also said that saw his newspaper as emulating the role that Fox News plays in the United States.
Speaking at the Israel Media Watch media prize award ceremony, Adelson said that over the last 20 years, in which he has been visiting Israel very often, he noticed that “something seemed strange” about the political views of his friends in the Jewish state. While Adelson's own political views were “far to the right,” he said (“Attila the Hun was too liberal for me,” he humorously put it), the friends' political views “didn't seem to jibe with reality.”
He said that he came to realize that the friends' world view was based on a false picture of reality which they had been receiving from the newspapers – particularly Ma'ariv and Yediot. “I found out that not only are they off base … they clearly follow the carrot and the stick approach. You get something nice if you act nice, or you get beat up if you don't act nice. Now what does that 'act nice' mean? Give me what I want, do want I tell you – purely in a dictatorial way.”
He told the audience at the IMW event that he sees his mission as similar to that of Fox News in the US, and that he even went so far as to contact Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and to receive his permission to use the slogan “fair and balanced,” which Fox News uses to describe itself.
Fox News is widely perceived as offering an alternative to the liberal stream which dominates mainstream media.
Israel Media Watch awarded its annual media criticism prize to Amos Regev, editor-in-chief of Yisrael HaYom newspaper, and to the family of IDF Captain R., who successfully sued Channel 2's Ilana Dayan for defaming him.
Yisrael HaYom, which is handed out without charge on the streets and in bus and railway stations, is becoming increasingly popular, challenging the supremacy of Yediot Acharonot and Maariv – the two newspapers that have dominated Israel's print news media for decades. It has already surpassed the latter's readership.
Adelson said at the IMW event that “the success of Yisrael HaYom is an unprecedented phenomenon and the aim is to be the largest newspaper in Israel.” Adelson added that “as an entrepreneur, I always try to attack the existing business status quo. In line with the trends in the western democracies, I saw the possibility of establishing a daily newspaper in Israel, too, that would be handed out for free with the motto of telling the truth in a fair, direct and balanced way. We don't tell our writers what to write.”
"I am proud to say that our success is phenomenal,” Adelson said, adding that he is an ardent Zionist and that when he first began looking at existing Israeli newspapers, he felt that they were out of touch with reality so that a new, high level and well-written paper was needed. He countered claims that his paper is a mouthpiece for Netanyahu, as competing newspapers have said.
Amos Regev said in his acceptance speech that the Israeli news media had become dominated, over the years, by what he said was a left-wing ideological uniformity. All writers are in favor of the so-called "peace process," he explained, and he who dares question that process finds himself "outside the bubble." He noted that Yisrael HaYom's competitors were so threatened by it that they engineered a "ridiculous" attempt to pass a law that would prevent foreign residents from owning newspapers in Israel.
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz spoke at the event and said: “Sometimes there is a feeling that for the media, truth is less important than sensationalism, attractiveness and gossip.”
He added that “respect for truth, commitment to truth, to the extent that it can be found out, must be our guiding light. This involves a lot of skepticism, fact checking and verification – in this field, Israeli media still has a long way to go.”
Speaking at the Israel Media Watch media prize award ceremony, Adelson said that over the last 20 years, in which he has been visiting Israel very often, he noticed that “something seemed strange” about the political views of his friends in the Jewish state. While Adelson's own political views were “far to the right,” he said (“Attila the Hun was too liberal for me,” he humorously put it), the friends' political views “didn't seem to jibe with reality.”
He said that he came to realize that the friends' world view was based on a false picture of reality which they had been receiving from the newspapers – particularly Ma'ariv and Yediot. “I found out that not only are they off base … they clearly follow the carrot and the stick approach. You get something nice if you act nice, or you get beat up if you don't act nice. Now what does that 'act nice' mean? Give me what I want, do want I tell you – purely in a dictatorial way.”
He told the audience at the IMW event that he sees his mission as similar to that of Fox News in the US, and that he even went so far as to contact Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and to receive his permission to use the slogan “fair and balanced,” which Fox News uses to describe itself.
Fox News is widely perceived as offering an alternative to the liberal stream which dominates mainstream media.
Israel Media Watch awarded its annual media criticism prize to Amos Regev, editor-in-chief of Yisrael HaYom newspaper, and to the family of IDF Captain R., who successfully sued Channel 2's Ilana Dayan for defaming him.
Yisrael HaYom, which is handed out without charge on the streets and in bus and railway stations, is becoming increasingly popular, challenging the supremacy of Yediot Acharonot and Maariv – the two newspapers that have dominated Israel's print news media for decades. It has already surpassed the latter's readership.
Adelson said at the IMW event that “the success of Yisrael HaYom is an unprecedented phenomenon and the aim is to be the largest newspaper in Israel.” Adelson added that “as an entrepreneur, I always try to attack the existing business status quo. In line with the trends in the western democracies, I saw the possibility of establishing a daily newspaper in Israel, too, that would be handed out for free with the motto of telling the truth in a fair, direct and balanced way. We don't tell our writers what to write.”
"I am proud to say that our success is phenomenal,” Adelson said, adding that he is an ardent Zionist and that when he first began looking at existing Israeli newspapers, he felt that they were out of touch with reality so that a new, high level and well-written paper was needed. He countered claims that his paper is a mouthpiece for Netanyahu, as competing newspapers have said.
Amos Regev said in his acceptance speech that the Israeli news media had become dominated, over the years, by what he said was a left-wing ideological uniformity. All writers are in favor of the so-called "peace process," he explained, and he who dares question that process finds himself "outside the bubble." He noted that Yisrael HaYom's competitors were so threatened by it that they engineered a "ridiculous" attempt to pass a law that would prevent foreign residents from owning newspapers in Israel.
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz spoke at the event and said: “Sometimes there is a feeling that for the media, truth is less important than sensationalism, attractiveness and gossip.”
He added that “respect for truth, commitment to truth, to the extent that it can be found out, must be our guiding light. This involves a lot of skepticism, fact checking and verification – in this field, Israeli media still has a long way to go.”
FM Lieberman: We will be tough in negotiations but the agreement will be valid
Speaking in a press conference at the Knesset, FM Lieberman said:
"I am certain that they prefer negotiating with (former Minister Yossi) Sarid and (former Minisetr Yossi) Beilin, and not with Netanyahu and Lieberman. I think they know that what Sarid and Beilin offer them will never be accepted in the State of Israel. On the other hand, any agreement finalized with Lieberman is accepted by 90% of the State of Israel's population."
"We will definitely be tough in negotiations and won't make promises in the air."
Lieberman teased his critics in the political system, saying that "all those who have complaints about Yisarel Beiteinu's stand are the ones who lost the elections. They are losers and the rest are winners."
"I am certain that they prefer negotiating with (former Minister Yossi) Sarid and (former Minisetr Yossi) Beilin, and not with Netanyahu and Lieberman. I think they know that what Sarid and Beilin offer them will never be accepted in the State of Israel. On the other hand, any agreement finalized with Lieberman is accepted by 90% of the State of Israel's population."
"We will definitely be tough in negotiations and won't make promises in the air."
Lieberman teased his critics in the political system, saying that "all those who have complaints about Yisarel Beiteinu's stand are the ones who lost the elections. They are losers and the rest are winners."
Palestinian FM: Mideast Indirect talks to start on Feb. 20 and focus above all on borders
(Haaretz, AFP).Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said Monday that renewed peace talks with Israel under U.S. mediation must focus first and foremost on the issue of borders.
"Proximity talks should focus on one issue only. That issue is borders," Malki said during a visit to Tokyo with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Other conflict issues such as water, security and Jerusalem must then be brought up for discussion, said Malki.
The Palestinian official added that the timeframe for such talks should be no more than three to four months.
Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said separately in a statement that Palestinians wanted to see the specific "objectives and timelines for proximity talks".
The talks are expected to begin on February 20, a senior Palestinian official told AFP on Monday.
"These contacts will be aimed at creating a better climate and reaching an understanding on the borders of the Palestinian state, and they will begin on February 20," the official said on condition of anonymity.
"They will last three months, with the Americans negotiating directly with the two sides after determining a timetable and agreed-upon mechanisms for implementation."
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said in London that he was "confident" the Palestinians would accept the proposed formula for indirect talks.
"Proximity talks are not our first choice, but they are better than no talks," Ayalon said.
"Proximity talks should focus on one issue only. That issue is borders," Malki said during a visit to Tokyo with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Other conflict issues such as water, security and Jerusalem must then be brought up for discussion, said Malki.
The Palestinian official added that the timeframe for such talks should be no more than three to four months.
Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said separately in a statement that Palestinians wanted to see the specific "objectives and timelines for proximity talks".
The talks are expected to begin on February 20, a senior Palestinian official told AFP on Monday.
"These contacts will be aimed at creating a better climate and reaching an understanding on the borders of the Palestinian state, and they will begin on February 20," the official said on condition of anonymity.
"They will last three months, with the Americans negotiating directly with the two sides after determining a timetable and agreed-upon mechanisms for implementation."
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said in London that he was "confident" the Palestinians would accept the proposed formula for indirect talks.
"Proximity talks are not our first choice, but they are better than no talks," Ayalon said.
Deputy FM Ayalon addresses ISS in London: 'We are waiting for the Palestinians 10 months'
(via Ynet).Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon arrived in London on Monday after receiving an official invitation from the British Foreign Office, as well as a promise that he would not be arrested for alleged war crimes during the visit.
The deputy foreign minister addressed the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London on issues relating to the Middle East.
At the start of his address, Ayalon attempted to ease the tension between Israel and Syria, which escalated following remarks made by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
All war chatter is futile, Ayalon said, "at least in the near future." he added that Iran was the source of all the problems in the region. "If the Iranian issue is solved, the region will only be the better for it," he said. "Iran uses its nuclear ambitions as the means to create a regional hegemony."
"There are confusing and contradictory statements emanating from Damascus. However, at the end of the day we will judge Syria by its actions and not its words. Syria is dependent on Iran and provides Hezbollah with long-range missiles aimed at Israel as well as supporting and hosting ten terror organizations in Damascus.
"The latest heightened rhetoric with Syria is because of Iran. Only Iran benefits from heightened tension in the region to deter attention from its nuclear weapons program. It is clear that when the Iranian issue is resolved, Syria will become more amenable."
Israel will not strike in Syria. Iran will benefit from a conflict between Israel and Syria and Hezbollah, and we will not fall into that trap, he added.
The deputy foreign minister added that Iran was a weak country working to strengthen itself through its ties with Syria and Hamas. He said that Iran was unable to stop the international economy from imposing sanctions against it, and added that the Islamic Republic may have additional nuclear facilities which have yet to be exposed.
As for the negotiations with the Palestinians, Ayalon rejected claims that the settlements were an obstacle to peace. "We proved it in the past with Egypt and with Gaza," he said, adding that the main problem was the need for a partner on the other side.
"The settlements are something which can be changed,The matters are complicated and urgent, and so we much sit at the negotiating table immediately."
Ayalon noted that Ehud Barak, during his term as prime minister, had offered the Palestinians 92% of their demands. Ehud Olmert, he said, accepted 95% of the demands. "And yet, we are still willing to sit at the negotiating table without preconditions,".
The deputy foreign minister addressed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech, in which he accepted the two-state solution, and protested the Palestinians' refusal to return to the negotiating table.
"Considering the background he came from and the political price he is paying for these declarations, declaring a complete freeze – considering the number of people in the settlements today – is unthinkable,".
"Israel, as opposed to the Palestinians, is not setting preconditions for negotiations. We have been waiting patiently, but urgently, at the negotiating table since the inception of this government over 10 months ago for the Palestinians to join us," he stated.
Ayalon went on to say that Israel has removed two-thirds of the roadblocks. "We are taking risks and will continue taking risks," he said.
Addressing the warnings against a demographic threat, he said this was a tool being used by those opposing the peace process. "There is no demographic threat, because there will be a separation between the two states. It will be impossible to put them under the same umbrella. There is essentially no threat for the establishment of a bi-national state."
Asked by one of the participants about the crisis which followed the humiliation of the Turkish ambassador to Israel, Ayalon said, "When I understood what had happened, I took responsibility and apologized to him. I have respect for him and for Turkey, which is Israel's ally."
He added, "I think we must have a little more mutual respect towards each other."
The deputy foreign minister addressed the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London on issues relating to the Middle East.
At the start of his address, Ayalon attempted to ease the tension between Israel and Syria, which escalated following remarks made by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
All war chatter is futile, Ayalon said, "at least in the near future." he added that Iran was the source of all the problems in the region. "If the Iranian issue is solved, the region will only be the better for it," he said. "Iran uses its nuclear ambitions as the means to create a regional hegemony."
"There are confusing and contradictory statements emanating from Damascus. However, at the end of the day we will judge Syria by its actions and not its words. Syria is dependent on Iran and provides Hezbollah with long-range missiles aimed at Israel as well as supporting and hosting ten terror organizations in Damascus.
"The latest heightened rhetoric with Syria is because of Iran. Only Iran benefits from heightened tension in the region to deter attention from its nuclear weapons program. It is clear that when the Iranian issue is resolved, Syria will become more amenable."
Israel will not strike in Syria. Iran will benefit from a conflict between Israel and Syria and Hezbollah, and we will not fall into that trap, he added.
The deputy foreign minister added that Iran was a weak country working to strengthen itself through its ties with Syria and Hamas. He said that Iran was unable to stop the international economy from imposing sanctions against it, and added that the Islamic Republic may have additional nuclear facilities which have yet to be exposed.
As for the negotiations with the Palestinians, Ayalon rejected claims that the settlements were an obstacle to peace. "We proved it in the past with Egypt and with Gaza," he said, adding that the main problem was the need for a partner on the other side.
"The settlements are something which can be changed,The matters are complicated and urgent, and so we much sit at the negotiating table immediately."
Ayalon noted that Ehud Barak, during his term as prime minister, had offered the Palestinians 92% of their demands. Ehud Olmert, he said, accepted 95% of the demands. "And yet, we are still willing to sit at the negotiating table without preconditions,".
The deputy foreign minister addressed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech, in which he accepted the two-state solution, and protested the Palestinians' refusal to return to the negotiating table.
"Considering the background he came from and the political price he is paying for these declarations, declaring a complete freeze – considering the number of people in the settlements today – is unthinkable,".
"Israel, as opposed to the Palestinians, is not setting preconditions for negotiations. We have been waiting patiently, but urgently, at the negotiating table since the inception of this government over 10 months ago for the Palestinians to join us," he stated.
Ayalon went on to say that Israel has removed two-thirds of the roadblocks. "We are taking risks and will continue taking risks," he said.
Addressing the warnings against a demographic threat, he said this was a tool being used by those opposing the peace process. "There is no demographic threat, because there will be a separation between the two states. It will be impossible to put them under the same umbrella. There is essentially no threat for the establishment of a bi-national state."
Asked by one of the participants about the crisis which followed the humiliation of the Turkish ambassador to Israel, Ayalon said, "When I understood what had happened, I took responsibility and apologized to him. I have respect for him and for Turkey, which is Israel's ally."
He added, "I think we must have a little more mutual respect towards each other."
PM Netanyahu: We'll let Israeli's vote abroad-'It will contribute to the connection and to Israel's strength'
(Ynet).Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to submit a bill allowing all Israeli citizens to vote abroad. "It will contribute to the connection and to Israel's strength," Netanyahu said during a Likud faction meeting on Monday.
The prime minister also said he would ask the government to approve a national transportation plan, which will promote railways bringing the periphery closer to central Israel.
If Knesset approves the bill allowing Israelis to vote abroad, it will implement one of the clauses included in the coalition agreement signed between Yisrael Beiteinu and the Likud.
According to the clause, "The government will form a governmental bill allowing the vote of Israelis who are abroad on Election Day, under conditions and criteria agreed upon by all the coalition members. The bill will be submitted to the Knesset within a year after the government's establishment."
The prime minister also said he would ask the government to approve a national transportation plan, which will promote railways bringing the periphery closer to central Israel.
If Knesset approves the bill allowing Israelis to vote abroad, it will implement one of the clauses included in the coalition agreement signed between Yisrael Beiteinu and the Likud.
According to the clause, "The government will form a governmental bill allowing the vote of Israelis who are abroad on Election Day, under conditions and criteria agreed upon by all the coalition members. The bill will be submitted to the Knesset within a year after the government's establishment."
FM Lieberman: It's time to forget our obsession of "territory in exchange for peace"
(IsraelNN.com) Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Israel Our Home party, says, "It's time to forget our obsession of "territory in exchange for peace; all future agreements must be based on 'peace in exchange for peace.'"
Speaking at a party faction meeting on Monday, Lieberman said, "Peace is in fact our heart's desire, but it is not more important than Israel's existence as the state of the Jewish people or than lasting security for its citizens. We extend our hand in peace to enemies, but as long as they choose the path of war, we must be firm, return battle, and defeat the enemy. We must strive for victory instead of talking about possible compromise, interpreted as weakness by our enemies.
"Our party, Yisrael Beiteinu, believes that we must free ourselves of the obsession of peace in exchange for land. Any future agreement will be based on peace for peace, and on the conception of maximum separation of the Jewish and Arab populaces, and on a regional solution, with the participation of Egyptian and Jordan.
"Peace talks can happen only after certain basic conditions are fulfilled: Terrorism must be defeated, a partner/leader must be found who wants peace and who is able to fulfill his promises; and there must be a basic change in the educational system of the Palestinian Authority, so that instead of educating towards the destruction of Israel, it will teach peace and acceptance."
"One idea [for a peace agreement] is to have an exchange of territories and populations," he said, referring to Arab-populated areas such as Umm el-Fahm, just south of the Galilee, which would become part of the PA entity, while large parts of Judea and Samaria would come under total Israeli sovereignty.
"The demand upon us is to remove all Jews from Judea and Samaria, just as we did in Gush Katif – which would mean that a totally Jew-free state would arise in those areas, at the same time that Israel remains a bi-national state [with a 20 percent Arab minority]. This is not acceptable. A future solution must be symmetrical, and must not perpetuate the conflict whose very basis is the clash between two peoples."
In a brief review of his party's accomplishments and goals, Lieberman said that though mistakes have been made and will be made – "Only those who don't do anything don't make any mistakes - but in summing up this past year, when I look at our voters and at our promises, I am satisfied. There are many positive aspects of our coalition agreement, and we plan to implement them, such as the law that will enable Israelis abroad to vote – we said that within a year of the establishment of the government this legislation would be introduced, and so by April 2 we plan to do so. In addition, we agreed that within 15 months – by this coming July – laws having to do with conversion and with civil marriages are supposed to come up for vote, and the citizenship law… We can't promise 100 percent success, but we can promise 100 percent effort; we will do all we can to fulfill all our promises to the voters."
Speaking at a party faction meeting on Monday, Lieberman said, "Peace is in fact our heart's desire, but it is not more important than Israel's existence as the state of the Jewish people or than lasting security for its citizens. We extend our hand in peace to enemies, but as long as they choose the path of war, we must be firm, return battle, and defeat the enemy. We must strive for victory instead of talking about possible compromise, interpreted as weakness by our enemies.
"Our party, Yisrael Beiteinu, believes that we must free ourselves of the obsession of peace in exchange for land. Any future agreement will be based on peace for peace, and on the conception of maximum separation of the Jewish and Arab populaces, and on a regional solution, with the participation of Egyptian and Jordan.
"Peace talks can happen only after certain basic conditions are fulfilled: Terrorism must be defeated, a partner/leader must be found who wants peace and who is able to fulfill his promises; and there must be a basic change in the educational system of the Palestinian Authority, so that instead of educating towards the destruction of Israel, it will teach peace and acceptance."
"One idea [for a peace agreement] is to have an exchange of territories and populations," he said, referring to Arab-populated areas such as Umm el-Fahm, just south of the Galilee, which would become part of the PA entity, while large parts of Judea and Samaria would come under total Israeli sovereignty.
"The demand upon us is to remove all Jews from Judea and Samaria, just as we did in Gush Katif – which would mean that a totally Jew-free state would arise in those areas, at the same time that Israel remains a bi-national state [with a 20 percent Arab minority]. This is not acceptable. A future solution must be symmetrical, and must not perpetuate the conflict whose very basis is the clash between two peoples."
In a brief review of his party's accomplishments and goals, Lieberman said that though mistakes have been made and will be made – "Only those who don't do anything don't make any mistakes - but in summing up this past year, when I look at our voters and at our promises, I am satisfied. There are many positive aspects of our coalition agreement, and we plan to implement them, such as the law that will enable Israelis abroad to vote – we said that within a year of the establishment of the government this legislation would be introduced, and so by April 2 we plan to do so. In addition, we agreed that within 15 months – by this coming July – laws having to do with conversion and with civil marriages are supposed to come up for vote, and the citizenship law… We can't promise 100 percent success, but we can promise 100 percent effort; we will do all we can to fulfill all our promises to the voters."
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Abbas to accept US proposal for indirect talks; Israel: Only as a start for future high level direct talks
(Haaretz).Senior Palestinian sources confirmed Sunday that Abbas has agreed in principle to the U.S. proposal for indirect talks. According to the same sources, Abbas intends to ask for a number of clarifications with the U.S. administration and will consult with Arab leaders prior to giving Washington his final response.
Abbas is inclined to respond positively to the American proposal, as a refusal would shed negative light on the Palestinian position.
Senior Israeli officials noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the talks will begin in late February and will result in the resumption of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The proposal relayed to Israel and the Palestinians during Mitchell's last visit to the region, about two weeks ago, involved the indirect negotiations beginning with American mediation. The format will be similar to the indirect talks Israel held with Syria in Turkey, with Mitchell relaying messages to the negotiating teams sitting in separate rooms.
The start of the indirect negotiations will mark the first time the Palestinians will hold political exchanges with Israel since Netanyahu became prime minister a year ago. However, it is a major step backward in terms of the contacts between Israel and the Palestinians, as it marks the first time in 16 years that talks held between the two will not be direct.
The talks will initially be held at low levels, in an effort to map out the two sides' positions and establish an agenda of topics to be discussed if the talks are upgraded into full-fledged political negotiations.
It remains unclear how exactly the indirect talks will be held and whether they will take place in Jerusalem or Washington. Heading the Palestinian team will be Saeb Erekat, who heads the Palestine Liberation Organization's negotiations team. On the Israeli side, Yitzhak Molcho will likely lead the team, along with Brigadier General Mike Herzog, adviser to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and possibly National Security Adviser Uzi Arad.
During a meeting with visiting Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos in Ramallah last week, Abbas said he would soon announce his agreement to the U.S. proposal to resume political talks with Israel, but added that these will only be indirect talks.
Senior sources in the Prime Minister's Bureau noted that Netanyahu had received similar messages from Europe and Washington, even if no official Palestinian response was forthcoming.
The prime minister stressed to the U.S. administration that the indirect talks be limited in terms of length of time, not exceeding two to three weeks.
"I want to reach direct talks with the Palestinians," Netanyahu said during his meeting with Moratinos last week. "I have no problem with proximity talks or indirect negotiations. I look at this as a ladder that will enable the Palestinians to climb down from the tree, and as a corridor that will lead to high-level talks."
Abbas is inclined to respond positively to the American proposal, as a refusal would shed negative light on the Palestinian position.
Senior Israeli officials noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the talks will begin in late February and will result in the resumption of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The proposal relayed to Israel and the Palestinians during Mitchell's last visit to the region, about two weeks ago, involved the indirect negotiations beginning with American mediation. The format will be similar to the indirect talks Israel held with Syria in Turkey, with Mitchell relaying messages to the negotiating teams sitting in separate rooms.
The start of the indirect negotiations will mark the first time the Palestinians will hold political exchanges with Israel since Netanyahu became prime minister a year ago. However, it is a major step backward in terms of the contacts between Israel and the Palestinians, as it marks the first time in 16 years that talks held between the two will not be direct.
The talks will initially be held at low levels, in an effort to map out the two sides' positions and establish an agenda of topics to be discussed if the talks are upgraded into full-fledged political negotiations.
It remains unclear how exactly the indirect talks will be held and whether they will take place in Jerusalem or Washington. Heading the Palestinian team will be Saeb Erekat, who heads the Palestine Liberation Organization's negotiations team. On the Israeli side, Yitzhak Molcho will likely lead the team, along with Brigadier General Mike Herzog, adviser to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and possibly National Security Adviser Uzi Arad.
During a meeting with visiting Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos in Ramallah last week, Abbas said he would soon announce his agreement to the U.S. proposal to resume political talks with Israel, but added that these will only be indirect talks.
Senior sources in the Prime Minister's Bureau noted that Netanyahu had received similar messages from Europe and Washington, even if no official Palestinian response was forthcoming.
The prime minister stressed to the U.S. administration that the indirect talks be limited in terms of length of time, not exceeding two to three weeks.
"I want to reach direct talks with the Palestinians," Netanyahu said during his meeting with Moratinos last week. "I have no problem with proximity talks or indirect negotiations. I look at this as a ladder that will enable the Palestinians to climb down from the tree, and as a corridor that will lead to high-level talks."
Netanyahu traveling to Russia to press Moscow on Iran
(Jpost).Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will travel to Moscow next Sunday for three days, his office announced on Sunday, for talks expected to focus on getting Russia to back stepped-up sanctions against Iran.
The visit, planned weeks ago, comes as the West is showing signs of growing impatience with what is starting to be seen throughout the US and Europe as little more than Iranian stalling tactics.
Israeli officials said they have been warning for months that as “crunch time” approaches, when a decision will have to be made on additional sanctions, Iran would “play all kinds of games.”
Israel, the officials said, remained active behind the scenes, urging the international community not to back down, and to see through the various Iranian ploys.
The issue is expected to dominate Netanyahu’s agenda in Moscow, where he will be making his first formal visit as prime minister. He went there in September for less than 24 hours, on a “secret” visit that was soon uncovered by the press.
One Israeli government official said the chances of Jerusalem or anyone else convincing the Russians that the time has come in the UN Security Council to impose crippling sanctions were slim, and that the US would likely initiate sanctions outside the UN framework, along with like-minded states.
Nevertheless, Washington, Israeli officials believe, will look for some kind of UN Security Council resolution calling for a fourth round of sanctions as a legal basis to take further, independent action.
The visit, planned weeks ago, comes as the West is showing signs of growing impatience with what is starting to be seen throughout the US and Europe as little more than Iranian stalling tactics.
Israeli officials said they have been warning for months that as “crunch time” approaches, when a decision will have to be made on additional sanctions, Iran would “play all kinds of games.”
Israel, the officials said, remained active behind the scenes, urging the international community not to back down, and to see through the various Iranian ploys.
The issue is expected to dominate Netanyahu’s agenda in Moscow, where he will be making his first formal visit as prime minister. He went there in September for less than 24 hours, on a “secret” visit that was soon uncovered by the press.
One Israeli government official said the chances of Jerusalem or anyone else convincing the Russians that the time has come in the UN Security Council to impose crippling sanctions were slim, and that the US would likely initiate sanctions outside the UN framework, along with like-minded states.
Nevertheless, Washington, Israeli officials believe, will look for some kind of UN Security Council resolution calling for a fourth round of sanctions as a legal basis to take further, independent action.
Sarah Palin: Obama could win reelection if he ‘played the war card’ on Iran and strongly supports Israel
(Thinkprogress.org).This morning on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace conducted a 25-minute interview with Sarah Palin, a paid contributor to Fox News. Palin told Wallace that she doesn’t think President Obama will win reelection in 2012 if he “continues on the path he has America on.” However, Palin indicated that his chances of winning would dramatically change if Obama simply declared war on Iran:
WALLACE: How hard do you think President Obama would be to defeat in 2012?
PALIN: It depends on a few things, say he played — I got this from Buchanan — say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.
WALLACE: You’re not suggesting that Obama would cynically play the war card?
PALIN: I’m not suggesting that, I’m saying if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and secure our allies. I think people would shift their thinking a bit.
Israel ranks 5th in world in clean-technology
(Shawn Lesser - Cleantech).The cleantech wave is expected to continue to grow, with some analysts estimating the cleantech market will crack the $2 trillion threshold by 2030.
The players in the cleantech space are a mix of world economic, political and social leaders. They include former American vice presidents, billionaire entrepreneurs, Arab Sultans, Internet moguls and huge pension funds.
A few months ago, I ranked the best states for top 10 states in the U.S for cleantech (see The top 10 U.S. states for cleantech in 2009). But that got me thinking: Which countries are the leaders in cleantech?
The players in the cleantech space are a mix of world economic, political and social leaders. They include former American vice presidents, billionaire entrepreneurs, Arab Sultans, Internet moguls and huge pension funds.
A few months ago, I ranked the best states for top 10 states in the U.S for cleantech (see The top 10 U.S. states for cleantech in 2009). But that got me thinking: Which countries are the leaders in cleantech?
#5.Israel, the 'Silicon Valley' of water technology, is fast becoming the cleantech incubator to the world (see Israel to export $2.5B in water technologies by 2011). Israel recycles 75 percent of its wastewater, invented drip irrigation, and is home to the world's largest reverse osmosis desalination plant (see Israel plans largest desal plant in $513M deal). Israel certainly isn't the world's biggest cleantech market, but it might just be one of the world's most important centers of cleantech innovation and R&D, with innovative companies such as CellEra, Aqwise, and Emefcy. Better Place is also making Israel the first test-market for a nationwide electric vehicle recharge network (see Electric cars are coming to Israel). Leading Israeli VCs include Israel Cleantech, Aqua Argo Fund and Terra Ventures.
ADL directer gives Obama an ‘F’ for Mideast policy failure
(Jpost).Two-and-a-half weeks after US President Barack Obama completed his first year in office, observers both in Israel and the US on Sunday gave his Middle East policy largely failing grades for efficacy.
“Since there are no prospects of talks on the horizon, and in many ways what their efforts wrought was a wasted year without any negotiations, I believe the administration deserves an ‘F’ for failure to deliver on results,” Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman told the ADL’s National Executive Committee.
In contrast, Foxman said that Obama deserved a “solid A for his efforts” after “he tried very hard in his first year to bring the parties together with good intentions.”
On strategy, Foxman rated the administration’s performance a “C-minus,” after “the administration... focused on trying to speed up the process toward peace, and is now questioning its own strategy.”
Among the strategic errors cited by Foxman were “unrealistic expectations” and heavy-handed focus on Israeli settlement policy.
Foxman is a Washington insider who has been close to several presidents and has acted as a frequent emissary between the White House and the Prime Minister’s Office behind the scenes over the past few decades.
“Since there are no prospects of talks on the horizon, and in many ways what their efforts wrought was a wasted year without any negotiations, I believe the administration deserves an ‘F’ for failure to deliver on results,” Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman told the ADL’s National Executive Committee.
In contrast, Foxman said that Obama deserved a “solid A for his efforts” after “he tried very hard in his first year to bring the parties together with good intentions.”
On strategy, Foxman rated the administration’s performance a “C-minus,” after “the administration... focused on trying to speed up the process toward peace, and is now questioning its own strategy.”
Among the strategic errors cited by Foxman were “unrealistic expectations” and heavy-handed focus on Israeli settlement policy.
Foxman is a Washington insider who has been close to several presidents and has acted as a frequent emissary between the White House and the Prime Minister’s Office behind the scenes over the past few decades.
Iran leader Khamenei says Israel's destruction 'imminent'
Are their intentions still unclear? where is the World, Goldstone and the UN on this? ignore and abandon the Hamas but engage with the Iranians?
(AFP) – Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday the destruction of Iran's arch-foe Israel was "imminent," and called for continued resistance against the Jewish state, state media reported.
"I am very optimistic about the future of Palestine and believe Israel is on the steep path of decline and deterioration," Khamenei told Ramadan Abdullah, the secretary general of Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad.
"God willing, its destruction will be imminent," the Islamic republic's all-powerful leader said. "Continued resistance and hope for victory should be taken into consideration."
(AFP) – Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday the destruction of Iran's arch-foe Israel was "imminent," and called for continued resistance against the Jewish state, state media reported.
"I am very optimistic about the future of Palestine and believe Israel is on the steep path of decline and deterioration," Khamenei told Ramadan Abdullah, the secretary general of Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad.
"God willing, its destruction will be imminent," the Islamic republic's all-powerful leader said. "Continued resistance and hope for victory should be taken into consideration."
Pew: Muslim nations show little enthusiasm for the extremist Islamic organizations Hamas and Hezbollah
Across predominantly Muslim nations, there is little enthusiasm for the extremist Islamic organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, although there are pockets of support for both groups, especially in the Middle East.
Four years after its victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas receives relatively positive ratings in Jordan (56% favorable) and Egypt (52%). However, Palestinians are more likely to give the group a negative (52%) than a positive (44%) rating. And reservations about Hamas are particularly common in the portion of the Palestinian territories it controls – just 37% in Gaza express a favorable opinion, compared with 47% in the West Bank.
A survey conducted May 18 to June 16, 2009 by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project also finds limited support for the Lebanese Shia organization Hezbollah.1 While most Palestinians (61%) and about half of Jordanians (51%) have a favorable view of Hezbollah, elsewhere opinions are less positive, including Egypt (43%) and Lebanon (35%). As with many issues in Lebanon, views of Hezbollah are sharply divided along religious lines: nearly all of the country's Shia Muslims (97%) express a positive opinion of the organization, while only 18% of Christians and 2% of Sunni Muslims feel this way.
Meanwhile, Turks overwhelmingly reject both groups – just 5% give Hamas a positive rating and only 3% say this about Hezbollah. There is also little support among Israel's Arab population for either Hamas (21% favorable) or Hezbollah (27%). Outside of the Middle East, many in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria are unable to offer an opinion about these groups.
Little Enthusiasm for Most Muslim Leaders
There is limited enthusiasm for most of the Muslim political figures tested on the survey, with the exception of Saudi King Abdullah, who is easily the most popular. In Jordan (92%) and Egypt (83%) for example, large majorities say they have confidence that King Abdullah will do the right thing in world affairs. The king receives quite positive ratings outside the Middle East as well, especially in the largely Muslim Asian nations Pakistan (64%) and Indonesia (61%). However, the Saudi monarch does not receive high marks everywhere – only 8% of Turks voice confidence in him. And overall his ratings are less positive than they were in 2007. 
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah receives less positive reviews. Only 37% of Lebanese overall express confidence in Nasrallah; however, the country's Shia community shows almost unanimous confidence in him (97%). He also receives relative high marks in the Palestinian territories, and especially in the West Bank, where 71% say they think he will do the right thing in international affairs.
Confidence in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has declined since 2007, especially in the neighboring countries of Egypt (67% confidence in 2007; 33% in 2009) and Jordan (53% in 2007; 33% in 2009). His ratings have dropped slightly among Palestinians overall (from 56% in 2007 to 52% in 2009); however, they have declined markedly among Gazans, falling from 69% to 51%.
Even before their disputed elections last year, both Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were generally unpopular among most of the Muslim publics surveyed. Ahmadinejad's highest ratings are in the Palestinian territories (45% confidence) and Indonesia (43%), although even among these publics fewer than half express a positive view of his leadership. There is no country in which even 40% express confidence in Karzai, and in Pakistan (10%), Turkey (7%) and Lebanon (7%) one-in-ten or fewer hold this view.
As mentioned previously, ratings for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden have generally declined in recent years, and he receives little support among most Muslim publics. However, about half (51%) of Palestinians express confidence in him and in Nigeria, 54%-majority of the country's Muslim population say they are confident in bin Laden's leadership. In Pakistan, where many believe bin Laden is now hiding, only 18% express confidence in him, although 35% do not offer an opinion. Very few Turks (3%) or Lebanese (2%) express support for the terrorist leader.
Across most of the 25 nations included in the spring 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, U.S. President Barack Obama received positive reviews, although this was less true in predominantly Muslim countries. Even so, his ratings were consistently higher than those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and in some cases higher than for the Muslim leaders included on the survey. For example, only 33% in Turkey have confidence in Obama, but this is still more support than Abbas, Nasrallah, Abdullah, Ahmadinejad, or Karzai receive. And the American president is quite popular among some largely Muslim publics, especially in Indonesia, where he spent several years as a child: 71% of Indonesians voice confidence in him. Obama is also popular among Nigerian Muslims (81%), Israeli Arabs (69%), and Lebanese Sunnis (65%).
In Arab nations, attitudes toward Jews remain extremely negative. More than 90% of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Palestinians express unfavorable views toward Jews. Only 35% of Israeli Arabs, however, express a negative opinion.
Report: Israeli warships on way to Persian Gulf
(PressTV).Egyptian maritime sources say the Israeli navy has deployed two missile ships to the Persian Gulf.
Citing the sources, Yediot Achronot reported Saturday that two Israeli missile ships passed through the Suez Canal en rout to the Red Sea on Thursday morning.
The sources said the ships are expected to reach the Persian Gulf within the next four days.
According to the report, Cairo adopted tight security measures to ensure the safe passage of the Israeli ships through the canal.
The waterway, which had not previously been used by Israeli vessels for intelligence reasons, was traversed for the first time in June 2009 when a Dolphin-class submarine (a nuclear German-made submarine) reportedly sailed from the Mediterranean to reach military exercises in the Red Sea.
Citing the sources, Yediot Achronot reported Saturday that two Israeli missile ships passed through the Suez Canal en rout to the Red Sea on Thursday morning.
The sources said the ships are expected to reach the Persian Gulf within the next four days.
According to the report, Cairo adopted tight security measures to ensure the safe passage of the Israeli ships through the canal.
The waterway, which had not previously been used by Israeli vessels for intelligence reasons, was traversed for the first time in June 2009 when a Dolphin-class submarine (a nuclear German-made submarine) reportedly sailed from the Mediterranean to reach military exercises in the Red Sea.
Netanyahu: Israel wants peace with Syria, 'However negotiations must take place without preconditions,'
(Ynet).Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel desires peace with all of its neighbors, following unprecedented threats made by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman towards Syria.
At the opening of the weekly Cabinet meeting Netanyahu said, "Israel aspires to peace accords with all of its neighbors. We have done it with Egypt and Jordan and we can do it with Syria and the Palestinians," he said.
"There are conditions for this. Negotiations must take place without preconditions that mean huge concessions on Israel's part ahead of time. Also, the accord must finally be accompanied by security agreements in order to last for generations."
The prime minister also presented to the Cabinet his plan to limit dependence on oil. "Certain countries which control oil support terror," he said.
"This is a global problem that requires international effort. I spoke of this with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the Polish prime minister, and others, and they have expressed interest in this issue."
"This is an effort that will not bear fruit within the next two or three years, but within a decade we may reach a solution, for example on the issue of dependence on oil for transportation."
At the opening of the weekly Cabinet meeting Netanyahu said, "Israel aspires to peace accords with all of its neighbors. We have done it with Egypt and Jordan and we can do it with Syria and the Palestinians," he said.
"There are conditions for this. Negotiations must take place without preconditions that mean huge concessions on Israel's part ahead of time. Also, the accord must finally be accompanied by security agreements in order to last for generations."
The prime minister also presented to the Cabinet his plan to limit dependence on oil. "Certain countries which control oil support terror," he said.
"This is a global problem that requires international effort. I spoke of this with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the Polish prime minister, and others, and they have expressed interest in this issue."
"This is an effort that will not bear fruit within the next two or three years, but within a decade we may reach a solution, for example on the issue of dependence on oil for transportation."
Saturday, February 6, 2010
NYTimes op-ed, Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt/ Europe's Identity Crisis
(PINCHAS GOLDSCHMIDT-NYtimes).It is perhaps ironic that a country that has prided itself on centuries of neutrality should suddenly seek a religious conflict while the home of liberty should seek to tell people how to dress.
Nonetheless, the decision taken by the good burghers of the Germanophone cantons in Switzerland to vote in large majorities in support of a referendum calling for a ban on minarets when there are virtually none in their own eye-range disguises an alarming identity crisis in Europe.
True, Switzerland has long made its own rules. Some cantons delayed women’s suffrage until the latter part of the 20th century while an earlier, pre-First World War manifestation of Swiss intolerance saw the country ban its Jews from slaughtering their own meat — a ban that remains in place today.
Similarly, for a French parliamentary committee to call for a ban on the burqa, notwithstanding more pressing local issues such as the state of the economy or the war in the courts between the president and the former prime minister, does seem, on the face of things, rather perverse. All the more so when the burqa is virtually nonexistent in France and even the niqab is such a rare feature on the streets and boulevards of the Fifth Republic.
Both proposed measures choose to attack what we might term “soft” targets — at least for the extremists — while hiding behind the perceived legitimacy of attacking extremism itself. What they actually do not do is to address the issues of either building permits for minarets or the rights of women, but rather they attack the very visibility of the Muslim presence in Europe itself.
Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz, Europeans can permit themselves to be squeamish about how things start and how things, if left unabated, can end, and about how perceived fears of losing national identity need to be addressed very quickly if they are not to lead down a very dangerous path.
Firstly, is there something we can genuinely call a normative European identity, or has Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage been swept away in the nihilism of a mixture of radical secularism and misdirected multiculturalism? As the rest of the world reasserts its localized heritages, proud in their folk, ethnic and religious traditions, is Europe ashamed of hers?
As a rabbi, I am made uncomfortable when any religious expression is restricted, not only my own. But I naturally err on the side of the maintenance of traditions. They give a moral compass and a secure footing in an ever-changing technological and impersonal world. They show us where we have come from and where we are going, and that is the basis of the humility of man and the ultimate equality and mutual responsibility of all of us.
The Bible, the root of our common Judeo-Christian heritage, states over and over again the importance of welcoming the stranger. That too is part of our European identity.
If we do have a shared common identity, we should seek to share it with others. If we support pluralism we should not seek to deny it but rather rigorously proselytize it everywhere.
The proposals to ban the burqa in France and minarets in Switzerland, wrong in and of themselves, are not the answer to what is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the influx of immigrants from the Middle East to Europe and their increased religiosity when they get here, often as a reaction to an enforced permissiveness and radical secularism to which they were never granted the societal tools to deal with.
Ultimately, a mosque without a minaret can always continue to exist and teach any kind of religious tolerance or intolerance. I can even state personal experience in this regard. The dome of the building where I serve as rabbi, the Moscow Choral Synagogue, was removed by the Czarist authorities over a century ago in order not to offend local Christian Orthodox sensitivities and only replaced some 10 years ago. Similarly, a burqa can also be removed from a woman’s face but she can still choose to teach love and respect for all God’s creatures to her children or choose the path of extremism and teach the hate of everything Europe stands for.
The key to the success of integration and acculturation of Europe’s immigrants is dependent on their integration into the public school system and later into the universities and workforce.
The culture of proscription and banning is alien to European culture and alien to preserving identity. It also gives exactly the opposite message that it seeks to convey.
If we want to bestow the notion of pluralism and a “live and let live” mentality on immigrants from totalitarian societies where all alternative religious expression, including Christian prayer-groups for foreign workers, is proscribed, Europe should be taking the lead in showing tolerance to religious pluralism.
It is the light of religious pluralism that will lead to the building of a world free of terrorism and hate.
Nonetheless, the decision taken by the good burghers of the Germanophone cantons in Switzerland to vote in large majorities in support of a referendum calling for a ban on minarets when there are virtually none in their own eye-range disguises an alarming identity crisis in Europe.
True, Switzerland has long made its own rules. Some cantons delayed women’s suffrage until the latter part of the 20th century while an earlier, pre-First World War manifestation of Swiss intolerance saw the country ban its Jews from slaughtering their own meat — a ban that remains in place today.
Similarly, for a French parliamentary committee to call for a ban on the burqa, notwithstanding more pressing local issues such as the state of the economy or the war in the courts between the president and the former prime minister, does seem, on the face of things, rather perverse. All the more so when the burqa is virtually nonexistent in France and even the niqab is such a rare feature on the streets and boulevards of the Fifth Republic.
Both proposed measures choose to attack what we might term “soft” targets — at least for the extremists — while hiding behind the perceived legitimacy of attacking extremism itself. What they actually do not do is to address the issues of either building permits for minarets or the rights of women, but rather they attack the very visibility of the Muslim presence in Europe itself.
Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz, Europeans can permit themselves to be squeamish about how things start and how things, if left unabated, can end, and about how perceived fears of losing national identity need to be addressed very quickly if they are not to lead down a very dangerous path.
Firstly, is there something we can genuinely call a normative European identity, or has Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage been swept away in the nihilism of a mixture of radical secularism and misdirected multiculturalism? As the rest of the world reasserts its localized heritages, proud in their folk, ethnic and religious traditions, is Europe ashamed of hers?
As a rabbi, I am made uncomfortable when any religious expression is restricted, not only my own. But I naturally err on the side of the maintenance of traditions. They give a moral compass and a secure footing in an ever-changing technological and impersonal world. They show us where we have come from and where we are going, and that is the basis of the humility of man and the ultimate equality and mutual responsibility of all of us.
The Bible, the root of our common Judeo-Christian heritage, states over and over again the importance of welcoming the stranger. That too is part of our European identity.
If we do have a shared common identity, we should seek to share it with others. If we support pluralism we should not seek to deny it but rather rigorously proselytize it everywhere.
The proposals to ban the burqa in France and minarets in Switzerland, wrong in and of themselves, are not the answer to what is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the influx of immigrants from the Middle East to Europe and their increased religiosity when they get here, often as a reaction to an enforced permissiveness and radical secularism to which they were never granted the societal tools to deal with.
Ultimately, a mosque without a minaret can always continue to exist and teach any kind of religious tolerance or intolerance. I can even state personal experience in this regard. The dome of the building where I serve as rabbi, the Moscow Choral Synagogue, was removed by the Czarist authorities over a century ago in order not to offend local Christian Orthodox sensitivities and only replaced some 10 years ago. Similarly, a burqa can also be removed from a woman’s face but she can still choose to teach love and respect for all God’s creatures to her children or choose the path of extremism and teach the hate of everything Europe stands for.
The key to the success of integration and acculturation of Europe’s immigrants is dependent on their integration into the public school system and later into the universities and workforce.
The culture of proscription and banning is alien to European culture and alien to preserving identity. It also gives exactly the opposite message that it seeks to convey.
If we want to bestow the notion of pluralism and a “live and let live” mentality on immigrants from totalitarian societies where all alternative religious expression, including Christian prayer-groups for foreign workers, is proscribed, Europe should be taking the lead in showing tolerance to religious pluralism.
It is the light of religious pluralism that will lead to the building of a world free of terrorism and hate.
At start of Cabinet meeting PM Netanyahu will make clear to Syria: The face of Israel is for peace
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will try this morning (Sunday) to finish the final verbal confrontation with Syria and the media. Netanyahu will send a message to the Syrian leadership at the start of the cabinet meeting in front of television cameras.
According to bureau officials, Prime Minister Netanyahu will emphasize that the face of Israel is for peace and that Israel has no aggressive intentions against Syria or desire to start a war with it.
According to bureau officials, Prime Minister Netanyahu will emphasize that the face of Israel is for peace and that Israel has no aggressive intentions against Syria or desire to start a war with it.
Fix the economy by lowering taxes / The opposite of Obama
(Nehemia Shtrasler-Haaretz).Throughout its existence, the United States has taken pride in its economic system, which is based on low taxation and a tight budget. That is the basis of the American dream. Come, build a business, work hard and the government will behave with restraint, taking a modest bite of the fruits of your labor and leaving you with the lion's share.
The American approach birthed an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit and impressive economic growth over decades and decades. Americans learned that low tax is the best growth driver in town. Thanks to low tax, they achieved the famous prosperity on which America's might, in peace and in war, is based.
Then along came Barack Obama and changed direction. Last week, he presented a gigantic budget for the year 2011, characterized by a terrifyingly large deficit. His budget boils down to the very antithesis of the American dream.
America's budget for 2011 is $3.8 trillion, and the deficit is projected to run at 11% of America's gross domestic product, or around $1.6 trillion. Never before has the United States run figures like that, at least during peace time. It has during war - for instance during the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865 or during World War II. But then the working assumption was that after the war, spending would drop, and the budget would return to normal.
This time, there's no such working assumption. When presenting his plan, Obama remarked, "We won't be able to bring down this deficit overnight." And with that the president of the United States shut down the growth engine of the American economy and condemned the nation to a protracted depression.
One of the worst things about a gargantuan deficit is the need to raise taxes. Obama's plan is to raise marginal tax from 36% to 39.6% and also to hike taxes on capital gains and dividends.
So far Israel has gone the opposite direction. We have been cutting expenditure and lowering tax, to make our economy more attractive. Investors flocked in and the economy flourished.
Tax cuts are immediately beneficial for the economy. We saw that in 2003, when the budget was cut and taxes were, too. The economy boomed, achieving 5% growth a year.
Then, too, the opponents of the budget and tax cuts wailed, and the very same people are moaning today, the same professors and central bank officials. They erroneously think that economics is a static science, so for them it's just a question of dividing the pie, not thinking of ways to increase it. In 2003, the Bank of Israel claimed the budget cuts would merely increase the deficit and therefore the national debt. What happened was the opposite.
The tax cuts wound up increasing total tax revenue because of the surge in economic activity (as Laffer curve theory - taxable income elasticity - postulates). When tax revenue increases, the lot of the poor can be improved, which is what happened here under Ehud Olmert. He had more tax revenue and therefore more to spend on the old, the Holocaust victims, on children at risk, on welfare and education and, yes, defense too.
That year, 500,000 people joined the workforce as demand for workers increased. Most were lower or middle class. So how can one claim that growth doesn't filter down? It does, and it's the only thing that can counter poverty and inequality.
Netanyahu and Steinitz must ignore the bad example set by the leaders of the West. They should continue to streamline government and cut taxes. In other words, they must do exactly the opposite of Obama.
The American approach birthed an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit and impressive economic growth over decades and decades. Americans learned that low tax is the best growth driver in town. Thanks to low tax, they achieved the famous prosperity on which America's might, in peace and in war, is based.
Then along came Barack Obama and changed direction. Last week, he presented a gigantic budget for the year 2011, characterized by a terrifyingly large deficit. His budget boils down to the very antithesis of the American dream.
America's budget for 2011 is $3.8 trillion, and the deficit is projected to run at 11% of America's gross domestic product, or around $1.6 trillion. Never before has the United States run figures like that, at least during peace time. It has during war - for instance during the U.S. Civil War of 1861-1865 or during World War II. But then the working assumption was that after the war, spending would drop, and the budget would return to normal.
This time, there's no such working assumption. When presenting his plan, Obama remarked, "We won't be able to bring down this deficit overnight." And with that the president of the United States shut down the growth engine of the American economy and condemned the nation to a protracted depression.
One of the worst things about a gargantuan deficit is the need to raise taxes. Obama's plan is to raise marginal tax from 36% to 39.6% and also to hike taxes on capital gains and dividends.
So far Israel has gone the opposite direction. We have been cutting expenditure and lowering tax, to make our economy more attractive. Investors flocked in and the economy flourished.
Tax cuts are immediately beneficial for the economy. We saw that in 2003, when the budget was cut and taxes were, too. The economy boomed, achieving 5% growth a year.
Then, too, the opponents of the budget and tax cuts wailed, and the very same people are moaning today, the same professors and central bank officials. They erroneously think that economics is a static science, so for them it's just a question of dividing the pie, not thinking of ways to increase it. In 2003, the Bank of Israel claimed the budget cuts would merely increase the deficit and therefore the national debt. What happened was the opposite.
The tax cuts wound up increasing total tax revenue because of the surge in economic activity (as Laffer curve theory - taxable income elasticity - postulates). When tax revenue increases, the lot of the poor can be improved, which is what happened here under Ehud Olmert. He had more tax revenue and therefore more to spend on the old, the Holocaust victims, on children at risk, on welfare and education and, yes, defense too.
That year, 500,000 people joined the workforce as demand for workers increased. Most were lower or middle class. So how can one claim that growth doesn't filter down? It does, and it's the only thing that can counter poverty and inequality.
Netanyahu and Steinitz must ignore the bad example set by the leaders of the West. They should continue to streamline government and cut taxes. In other words, they must do exactly the opposite of Obama.
Abbas to Der Spiegel: When the US president demands this, I cannot accept anything less;"I will not back down"
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, 74, discusses peace negotiations with Israel and his disappointment with United States President Barack Obama in an exclusive SPIEGEL interview.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the whole world is waiting for you to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for talks. When is this finally going to happen?
Abbas: That depends on Israel. We Palestinians have always said that we are willing to negotiate, but only if Israel stops settlement construction completely and recognizes the 1967 borders.
SPIEGEL: Why are you standing in the way of talks by setting these preconditions?
Abbas: They aren't preconditions, but steps that are overdue after the first phase of the international roadmap for peace. Unlike Israel, we have met our obligations: We have recognized Israel's right to exist, and we are combating violent Palestinian groups. The Americans, the Europeans and even the Israelis have acknowledged this.
SPIEGEL: At least Netanyahu has ordered a 10-month freeze on settlements, something no other Israeli prime minister has done. Wouldn't it be your turn now to take a step in his direction?
Abbas: It isn't a real moratorium, because a few thousand housing units are still being built in the West Bank, and Jerusalem is completely exempted from the settlement freeze.
SPIEGEL: You negotiated with Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, even though settlement construction was continuing without restrictions at the time. Aren't you applying a double standard here?
Abbas: In a way, yes. But I have asked Olmert to freeze settlement construction every time we met. Besides, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in the interim. In his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, he called for a complete freeze on settlements. When the American president does this, I cannot accept anything less.
SPIEGEL: But now Obama is only talking about Israeli "restraint" in building settlements. At his request, you even agreed to a symbolic handshake with Netanyahu in New York.
Abbas: I was initially very optimistic after Obama won the election. His Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, kept coming to us and promised to urge the Israelis to stop settlement construction completely. Mitchell said that the negotiations would only resume after a moratorium. The American government suddenly backed away from this position in September.
SPIEGEL: Are you saying that it's the Americans' fault that things aren't progressing?
Abbas: Naturally, I'm not pleased with the Americans' change of course. But I will not back down.
SPIEGEL: What do you expect from Obama?
Abbas: I still hope that he will revive the peace process. At least he has to convince the Israelis to announce a complete freeze on construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for a few months.
SPIEGEL: Apparently the pressure Obama has exerted on Israel until now hasn't been very effective.
Abbas: It isn't my job to tell the Americans how to deal with Israel. But they have options. They are, after all, the most powerful country in the world. Obama said that a Palestinian state constitutes a vital American interest. The president is under an obligation to apply all of his energy to achieving peace and the vision of a Palestinian state.
SPIEGEL: Could it be that the real reason for the current standstill is that you don't trust Netanyahu?
Abbas: What he has said so far, at any rate, leads me to question whether he really wants a solution. He has not expressly accepted the two-state solution.
SPIEGEL: In a speech at Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, Netanyahu said: "If the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state."
Abbas: You see, he's the one who is setting preconditions. He declares Jerusalem as the "undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel." He refuses to discuss the question of Palestinian refugees. And he insists that we accept Israel in advance as a Jewish state.
SPIEGEL: But the principle of the two-state solution must mean that the one state is for the Palestinians and the other is for the Jews. Why do you have a problem with recognizing Israel as a Jewish state?
Abbas: We recognized the State of Israel within the 1967 borders. Whether it defines itself as a Jewish state, a Hebrew state or a Zionist state is its business. As far as I'm concerned, it can call itself what it pleases. But he cannot force me to agree with this definition.
SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the whole world is waiting for you to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for talks. When is this finally going to happen?
Abbas: That depends on Israel. We Palestinians have always said that we are willing to negotiate, but only if Israel stops settlement construction completely and recognizes the 1967 borders.
SPIEGEL: Why are you standing in the way of talks by setting these preconditions?
Abbas: They aren't preconditions, but steps that are overdue after the first phase of the international roadmap for peace. Unlike Israel, we have met our obligations: We have recognized Israel's right to exist, and we are combating violent Palestinian groups. The Americans, the Europeans and even the Israelis have acknowledged this.
SPIEGEL: At least Netanyahu has ordered a 10-month freeze on settlements, something no other Israeli prime minister has done. Wouldn't it be your turn now to take a step in his direction?
Abbas: It isn't a real moratorium, because a few thousand housing units are still being built in the West Bank, and Jerusalem is completely exempted from the settlement freeze.
SPIEGEL: You negotiated with Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, even though settlement construction was continuing without restrictions at the time. Aren't you applying a double standard here?
Abbas: In a way, yes. But I have asked Olmert to freeze settlement construction every time we met. Besides, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in the interim. In his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, he called for a complete freeze on settlements. When the American president does this, I cannot accept anything less.
SPIEGEL: But now Obama is only talking about Israeli "restraint" in building settlements. At his request, you even agreed to a symbolic handshake with Netanyahu in New York.
Abbas: I was initially very optimistic after Obama won the election. His Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, kept coming to us and promised to urge the Israelis to stop settlement construction completely. Mitchell said that the negotiations would only resume after a moratorium. The American government suddenly backed away from this position in September.
SPIEGEL: Are you saying that it's the Americans' fault that things aren't progressing?
Abbas: Naturally, I'm not pleased with the Americans' change of course. But I will not back down.
SPIEGEL: What do you expect from Obama?
Abbas: I still hope that he will revive the peace process. At least he has to convince the Israelis to announce a complete freeze on construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for a few months.
SPIEGEL: Apparently the pressure Obama has exerted on Israel until now hasn't been very effective.
Abbas: It isn't my job to tell the Americans how to deal with Israel. But they have options. They are, after all, the most powerful country in the world. Obama said that a Palestinian state constitutes a vital American interest. The president is under an obligation to apply all of his energy to achieving peace and the vision of a Palestinian state.
SPIEGEL: Could it be that the real reason for the current standstill is that you don't trust Netanyahu?
Abbas: What he has said so far, at any rate, leads me to question whether he really wants a solution. He has not expressly accepted the two-state solution.
SPIEGEL: In a speech at Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, Netanyahu said: "If the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state."
Abbas: You see, he's the one who is setting preconditions. He declares Jerusalem as the "undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel." He refuses to discuss the question of Palestinian refugees. And he insists that we accept Israel in advance as a Jewish state.
SPIEGEL: But the principle of the two-state solution must mean that the one state is for the Palestinians and the other is for the Jews. Why do you have a problem with recognizing Israel as a Jewish state?
Abbas: We recognized the State of Israel within the 1967 borders. Whether it defines itself as a Jewish state, a Hebrew state or a Zionist state is its business. As far as I'm concerned, it can call itself what it pleases. But he cannot force me to agree with this definition.
Z Street and ZFA stand up for Israel in Penn. University
(IsraelNN.com) J Street, the Washington lobby with strong connections to the Obama administration, held an event at the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday evening, February 4th, amidst local and nation-wide controversy over the group’s “pro-Israel” credentials. The organization, which advocates strong American pressure to force an Israeli surrender of Judea and Samaria as well as the forced expulsion of all Jewish residents from these lands, created a stir in the Jewish media and blogsphere for two weeks with the planned visit of director Jeremy Ben-Ami to the University’s Hillel building.
Z Street, a local pro-Israel organization initially attempted to pressure the University to withdraw its invitation to J Street’s Ben-Ami but when Hillel responded with claims that it was merely renting space to the powerful Washington lobby, Z Street settled for a room in the Hillel building to hold a simultaneous pro-Israel event. The group brought Mitchell Bard, who attracted most of the students concerned with events in the Middle East, and left J Street an audience comprised mainly of elderly Jews from the Philadelphia area.
Roz Rothstein of the California based pro-Israel StandWithUs organization, traveled to Pennsylvania to attend the J Street event and confronted Ben-Ami with her concerns about his activities. “For me, there were several unanswered questions,” she told Israel National News following the event. “First, how does J Street justify pressuring the democratically elected government of another country to change its policies through lobbying elected officials in the United States? Second, how can people living in the safety of the United States make policy decisions for another country, possibly endangering its citizens? I tried to find out what Ben-Ami thought. I asked him the questions that were on my mind but did not get answers.”
Brian Finkel, founding president of the University of Pennsylvania’s Zionist Freedom Alliance chapter, organized student activists to stand by the entrance to J Street’s event handing out flyers revealing information about the influential Washington lobby, including the massive donations it accepts from people with clear and public anti-Israel agendas. In an interview with Israel National News, Finkel said that for two weeks he and fellow Zionist students coordinated with other organizations – including Z Street, Americans For a Safe Israel and the Zionist Organization of America – to plan an appropriate response to J Street’s visit to their campus.
“J Street asked Hillel staff for permission to use the main auditorium in the Penn Hillel building for a local launch and national webcast to its followers. Permission was granted, but without any consultation with Hillel students. This unilateral action by Hillel staff was met with tremendous anger and frustration from students, whose voices and opinions were entirely ignored in the process. ZFA decided to give those students a voice.”
Finkel, who previously served as Hillel’s Israel chair, described J Street as “an extremist Washington group that lobbies the United States government to impose policies on Israel.” On Wednesday evening, Finkel brought Dan Pollak, Director of Government Relations for the ZOA in Washington, to speak about why J Street poses a danger to the State of Israel. The event drew students and Philadelphia community members alike, prompting a lively debate about J Street’s true motives.
During the period that the Z Street sponsored Mitchell Bard event attracted students away from Ben-Ami’s presentation, the ZFA distributed flyers explaining why the school’s pro-Israel students were opposed to – and ashamed of – J Street’s presence at their Hillel. The flyers included many anti-Israel statements made by J Street leaders and showcased how J Street seeks to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and security by imposing its political agenda on an independent state. Several members of J Street unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the distribution of the ZFA flyers. After handing out all of their material and speaking to the local media, the Zionist students entered the event but were prevented from asking questions.
ZFA told Israel National News that their protest was not only directed at J Street but also at the Hillel staff who, in their view, pushes an extremist political agenda. In recent years the Penn Hillel has brought fringe groups to campus such as Rabbis for Human Rights and Breaking the Silence, each of whom receive generous funding from European governments hostile to the Jewish state.
“Its time for us to take back our Hillel and give students a voice again,” Finkel said. “Hillel exists so that Jewish students can have a safe haven on campus. It is hard enough to advocate for Israel on campus without your own Hillel giving space to dangerous and manipulative anti-Israel groups like J Street. Israel is an independent state with its own government and leaders. The people of Israel can and do make their own choices. What right do American extremists like J Street have to impose their will on a foreign country?”
Z Street, a local pro-Israel organization initially attempted to pressure the University to withdraw its invitation to J Street’s Ben-Ami but when Hillel responded with claims that it was merely renting space to the powerful Washington lobby, Z Street settled for a room in the Hillel building to hold a simultaneous pro-Israel event. The group brought Mitchell Bard, who attracted most of the students concerned with events in the Middle East, and left J Street an audience comprised mainly of elderly Jews from the Philadelphia area.
Roz Rothstein of the California based pro-Israel StandWithUs organization, traveled to Pennsylvania to attend the J Street event and confronted Ben-Ami with her concerns about his activities. “For me, there were several unanswered questions,” she told Israel National News following the event. “First, how does J Street justify pressuring the democratically elected government of another country to change its policies through lobbying elected officials in the United States? Second, how can people living in the safety of the United States make policy decisions for another country, possibly endangering its citizens? I tried to find out what Ben-Ami thought. I asked him the questions that were on my mind but did not get answers.”
Brian Finkel, founding president of the University of Pennsylvania’s Zionist Freedom Alliance chapter, organized student activists to stand by the entrance to J Street’s event handing out flyers revealing information about the influential Washington lobby, including the massive donations it accepts from people with clear and public anti-Israel agendas. In an interview with Israel National News, Finkel said that for two weeks he and fellow Zionist students coordinated with other organizations – including Z Street, Americans For a Safe Israel and the Zionist Organization of America – to plan an appropriate response to J Street’s visit to their campus.
“J Street asked Hillel staff for permission to use the main auditorium in the Penn Hillel building for a local launch and national webcast to its followers. Permission was granted, but without any consultation with Hillel students. This unilateral action by Hillel staff was met with tremendous anger and frustration from students, whose voices and opinions were entirely ignored in the process. ZFA decided to give those students a voice.”
Finkel, who previously served as Hillel’s Israel chair, described J Street as “an extremist Washington group that lobbies the United States government to impose policies on Israel.” On Wednesday evening, Finkel brought Dan Pollak, Director of Government Relations for the ZOA in Washington, to speak about why J Street poses a danger to the State of Israel. The event drew students and Philadelphia community members alike, prompting a lively debate about J Street’s true motives.
During the period that the Z Street sponsored Mitchell Bard event attracted students away from Ben-Ami’s presentation, the ZFA distributed flyers explaining why the school’s pro-Israel students were opposed to – and ashamed of – J Street’s presence at their Hillel. The flyers included many anti-Israel statements made by J Street leaders and showcased how J Street seeks to undermine Israel’s sovereignty and security by imposing its political agenda on an independent state. Several members of J Street unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the distribution of the ZFA flyers. After handing out all of their material and speaking to the local media, the Zionist students entered the event but were prevented from asking questions.
ZFA told Israel National News that their protest was not only directed at J Street but also at the Hillel staff who, in their view, pushes an extremist political agenda. In recent years the Penn Hillel has brought fringe groups to campus such as Rabbis for Human Rights and Breaking the Silence, each of whom receive generous funding from European governments hostile to the Jewish state.
“Its time for us to take back our Hillel and give students a voice again,” Finkel said. “Hillel exists so that Jewish students can have a safe haven on campus. It is hard enough to advocate for Israel on campus without your own Hillel giving space to dangerous and manipulative anti-Israel groups like J Street. Israel is an independent state with its own government and leaders. The people of Israel can and do make their own choices. What right do American extremists like J Street have to impose their will on a foreign country?”
Haaretz spares English readers from seeing poll result - 53%:28% remaining in territories won't lead to bi-national state
(IMRA)..Yossi Verter at Haaretz, just raring to go with a write up that is going to use a simply devastating poll to attack those Neanderthals who don't believe in the truth that he holds so dear - that he and all his enlightened pals know is the absolute and incontrovertible truth (that if we would just agree to withdraw to the '67 lines that there would be utopian peace).
And to make the point you arranged for the following question to be included in the poll.
"May our continued presence in the territories lead to a bi-national state?"
It will be a perfect way to drive the message home that those Neanderthals are completely out of touch with the nation.
And then comes the e-mail from an assistant to Prof. Camil Fuchs from the Department of Statistics at Tel Aviv University.
The results:
"May our continued presence in the territories lead to a bi-national state?Yes 28%No 53%"
Oops.
The stupid Israeli public!
What a dilemma.
On the one hand, this is an incredibly interesting poll result. So from the standpoint of being newsworthy, it certainly should be shared with the readers of the paper.
On the other hand, it doesn't help the cause.
And to make the point you arranged for the following question to be included in the poll.
"May our continued presence in the territories lead to a bi-national state?"
It will be a perfect way to drive the message home that those Neanderthals are completely out of touch with the nation.
And then comes the e-mail from an assistant to Prof. Camil Fuchs from the Department of Statistics at Tel Aviv University.
The results:
"May our continued presence in the territories lead to a bi-national state?Yes 28%No 53%"
Oops.
The stupid Israeli public!
What a dilemma.
On the one hand, this is an incredibly interesting poll result. So from the standpoint of being newsworthy, it certainly should be shared with the readers of the paper.
On the other hand, it doesn't help the cause.
Can I just drop it altogether from the report?
Not so simple. After all, 491 people got a call for this poll and there is a chance that one of them will see the paper and notice the censorship. Add to that that the pollster will know we pulled a fast one. And someone in the phone bank might tell.
So here is the solution: Don't mention it in the text of the write up in either Hebrew or English. While the Hebrew version on internet includes the tables (that include the result for this question), the English version doesn't include tables. So the English speaking audience we are trying to influence with our message can be spared the confusion of the result.
Once again. A message to those reading Haaretz in English: learn Hebrew!
Once again. A message to those reading Haaretz in English: learn Hebrew!
So here is the message to all 2 State solution lovers:
May our continued presence in the territories lead to a bi-national state?Yes 28% No 53%
Senator Lieberman: Time to choose - Impose sanctions on Iran or attack it
The world faces a stark choice between imposing tough sanctions on Iran to stop its nuclear program, or attacking it, United States Senator Joe Lieberman said Saturday.
Lieberman is the influential chairman of the Senate committee on homeland security. He was speaking a day after Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that his country was ready to accept an international swap of uranium, but only under certain conditions.
"We have a choice here: to go to tough economic sanctions to make diplomacy work or we will face the prospect of military action against Iran," Lieberman told the annual Munich Security Conference.
Top U.S. commanders are already working out how such a strike should be conducted, and although "no-one wants this to happen ... unless we together act strongly and do more than talk that is exactly what will happen," Lieberman said.
A nuclear-armed Iran would provoke chaos in the Middle East, send world oil prices soaring and end any hope of a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lieberman said.
Lieberman is the influential chairman of the Senate committee on homeland security. He was speaking a day after Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that his country was ready to accept an international swap of uranium, but only under certain conditions.
"We have a choice here: to go to tough economic sanctions to make diplomacy work or we will face the prospect of military action against Iran," Lieberman told the annual Munich Security Conference.
Top U.S. commanders are already working out how such a strike should be conducted, and although "no-one wants this to happen ... unless we together act strongly and do more than talk that is exactly what will happen," Lieberman said.
A nuclear-armed Iran would provoke chaos in the Middle East, send world oil prices soaring and end any hope of a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lieberman said.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Bibi report "No more excuses" show Feb. 4 with Alan Friedlander on Mideast peace and Iran
FM Lieberman on Syria feud: Grave issues in Mideast require a response
(Haaretz).Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Friday defended his controversial comments warning Syria not to attack Israel, saying that grave issues in the Middle East cannot go without response.
Lieberman on Thursday said "Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power."
His remarks came after Syrian President Bashar Assad on Wednesday told Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos that Israel was pushing the Middle East toward a new war.
Lieberman's comments drew harsh criticism on Thursday from a range of Knesset members, some of whom urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to rein him in or dismiss him.
However, the Foreign Minister dismissed the criticism on Friday, saying, "I don't work for the media or for public opinion."
"My response, which I made in order to clarify that the situation [with Syria] is unbearable, was immediately met with a hysterical reaction in Israel of 'how dare we anger the nobleman,'" Lieberman said on Friday in an interview with Channel 2 news.
He went on to say that he finds it unfortunate the Israeli left has adopted this reactionary habit and added, "I think that in the Middle East, we cannot let grave things go without a response."
Lieberman on Thursday said "Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power."
His remarks came after Syrian President Bashar Assad on Wednesday told Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos that Israel was pushing the Middle East toward a new war.
Lieberman's comments drew harsh criticism on Thursday from a range of Knesset members, some of whom urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to rein him in or dismiss him.
However, the Foreign Minister dismissed the criticism on Friday, saying, "I don't work for the media or for public opinion."
"My response, which I made in order to clarify that the situation [with Syria] is unbearable, was immediately met with a hysterical reaction in Israel of 'how dare we anger the nobleman,'" Lieberman said on Friday in an interview with Channel 2 news.
He went on to say that he finds it unfortunate the Israeli left has adopted this reactionary habit and added, "I think that in the Middle East, we cannot let grave things go without a response."
Jpost Editorial: The new maturity -Tensions have eased between Obama and Netanyahu
(David Horowitz-Jpost).Tensions have eased a little, some argue, between a young president newly recognizing the limits of his power, and a second-time PM all too aware of the limits of his.
....in the view of some of these Washington insiders with whom I spoke this week, the partnership between Obama’s America and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has become a little smoother of late, after the tensions of previous months.
The last few weeks, they note, have been marked by an absence of the hitherto familiar public demands, by administration figures up to and including the president, that Israel give further ground to the Palestinians in the cause of a resumption of direct negotiations. At present, it would seem, the administration is angrier with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas over the failure to restart substantive talks, and with various Arab states for failing to provide the small steps toward wider normalization with Israel that might, in turn, have encouraged greater Israeli flexibility.
While it would dearly have loved Netanyahu to call a halt to all building for Jews beyond the pre-1967 lines, the insiders argue, the administration has developed an appreciation for some of Netanyahu’s political constraints and does recognize that even the limited moratorium on settlement building declared by the prime minister was a move of considerable significance for a Likud leader. As Obama put it during an address in Florida last week, “I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is actually making some effort to try to move a little bit further than his coalition wants him to go.”
That doesn’t mean that the heat will be off Israel for any substantial length of time. Indeed, another bout of pressure is almost certain, when (rather than if) the latest efforts to budge Abbas produce no concrete shift.
The frustrations Obama’s administration feel with Israel are emphatically still there. The White House remains convinced that Israel is undermining everybody’s interests, including its own, by expanding settlements. And it still thinks, misguidedly, that it should push for dramatic progress on the Palestinian front as a means of securing wider Arab support for concerted pressure on Iran, when the truth is that only if Iran’s nuclear drive is thwarted will the forces preventing Israeli-Palestinian progress be weakened.
But still, for now, some of these insiders reiterate, things are a little better. Ties between a fresh, young president newly recognizing the limits of his power, and a second-time prime minister all-too aware of the limits of his, have reached a certain maturity.
AND THEN they go on to list a number of factors that critics of Obama’s policies tend to marginalize when claiming the administration is hostile to Israel.
They note that in a year when the US is grappling with financial strains more acute than they have been for decades, foreign aid to Israel is untouched, secure and considerable – in the familiar region of $3 billion this year.
They highlight America’s unique cooperation with Israel in military development, which is enabling Israel to maintain its crucial qualitative military edge in the region.
They stress that the administration has been rock solid on the Goldstone Report – voting in vain against its adoption in the United Nations Human Rights Council in October, and again in the General Assembly in November. While countries from which we might have expected better failed to stand up for what amounted to Israel’s right to self-defense, and while certain European nations have now become no-go zones for Israeli leaders facing a genuine fear of arrest for purported war crimes, they point out, the US is firmly in Israel’s corner.
A ferocious assault on Israel’s legitimacy is under way at innumerable American university campuses – the disease of British academia spreading across the pond. But the administration is robust. We’ve really only got one significant partner in this particular aspect of the battle against our delegitimation, they add, but if you’ve only got one ally, thank goodness it’s America.
And they assert that on the matter of the most potent threat to Israel, the Iranian nuclear drive, the Obama administration is determined to push for more biting sanctions and has, as promised, made the issue a priority in all its bilateral relationships, seeking to chivvy reluctant players into intensifying the economic pressure on Teheran. Israel’s own leadership, they argue, has by no means abandoned all hope of the US-led sanctions having an impact, especially when combined with the abiding internal Iranian opposition to the mullahs’ regime.
SO YES, these insiders acknowledge, there are tensions between Washington and Jerusalem – always have been, always will be. But the fundamental relationship remains strong. The foreign aid, the support in diplomatic forums, the military partnerships – these are immensely significant. These are not things that we should take for granted.
Fair enough. Except that, not too long ago, these were things that we could take for granted.
....in the view of some of these Washington insiders with whom I spoke this week, the partnership between Obama’s America and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has become a little smoother of late, after the tensions of previous months.
The last few weeks, they note, have been marked by an absence of the hitherto familiar public demands, by administration figures up to and including the president, that Israel give further ground to the Palestinians in the cause of a resumption of direct negotiations. At present, it would seem, the administration is angrier with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas over the failure to restart substantive talks, and with various Arab states for failing to provide the small steps toward wider normalization with Israel that might, in turn, have encouraged greater Israeli flexibility.
While it would dearly have loved Netanyahu to call a halt to all building for Jews beyond the pre-1967 lines, the insiders argue, the administration has developed an appreciation for some of Netanyahu’s political constraints and does recognize that even the limited moratorium on settlement building declared by the prime minister was a move of considerable significance for a Likud leader. As Obama put it during an address in Florida last week, “I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is actually making some effort to try to move a little bit further than his coalition wants him to go.”
That doesn’t mean that the heat will be off Israel for any substantial length of time. Indeed, another bout of pressure is almost certain, when (rather than if) the latest efforts to budge Abbas produce no concrete shift.
The frustrations Obama’s administration feel with Israel are emphatically still there. The White House remains convinced that Israel is undermining everybody’s interests, including its own, by expanding settlements. And it still thinks, misguidedly, that it should push for dramatic progress on the Palestinian front as a means of securing wider Arab support for concerted pressure on Iran, when the truth is that only if Iran’s nuclear drive is thwarted will the forces preventing Israeli-Palestinian progress be weakened.
But still, for now, some of these insiders reiterate, things are a little better. Ties between a fresh, young president newly recognizing the limits of his power, and a second-time prime minister all-too aware of the limits of his, have reached a certain maturity.
AND THEN they go on to list a number of factors that critics of Obama’s policies tend to marginalize when claiming the administration is hostile to Israel.
They note that in a year when the US is grappling with financial strains more acute than they have been for decades, foreign aid to Israel is untouched, secure and considerable – in the familiar region of $3 billion this year.
They highlight America’s unique cooperation with Israel in military development, which is enabling Israel to maintain its crucial qualitative military edge in the region.
They stress that the administration has been rock solid on the Goldstone Report – voting in vain against its adoption in the United Nations Human Rights Council in October, and again in the General Assembly in November. While countries from which we might have expected better failed to stand up for what amounted to Israel’s right to self-defense, and while certain European nations have now become no-go zones for Israeli leaders facing a genuine fear of arrest for purported war crimes, they point out, the US is firmly in Israel’s corner.
A ferocious assault on Israel’s legitimacy is under way at innumerable American university campuses – the disease of British academia spreading across the pond. But the administration is robust. We’ve really only got one significant partner in this particular aspect of the battle against our delegitimation, they add, but if you’ve only got one ally, thank goodness it’s America.
And they assert that on the matter of the most potent threat to Israel, the Iranian nuclear drive, the Obama administration is determined to push for more biting sanctions and has, as promised, made the issue a priority in all its bilateral relationships, seeking to chivvy reluctant players into intensifying the economic pressure on Teheran. Israel’s own leadership, they argue, has by no means abandoned all hope of the US-led sanctions having an impact, especially when combined with the abiding internal Iranian opposition to the mullahs’ regime.
SO YES, these insiders acknowledge, there are tensions between Washington and Jerusalem – always have been, always will be. But the fundamental relationship remains strong. The foreign aid, the support in diplomatic forums, the military partnerships – these are immensely significant. These are not things that we should take for granted.
Fair enough. Except that, not too long ago, these were things that we could take for granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
