AIAC launch "Get out the Vote" among Americans in Israel - 'Our Campaign is Not Anti-Obama, Just Pro-American Israeli'

(INN).Every vote counts.With that in mind, the American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC) kicked-off of its “Get out the Vote” campaign among Americans living in Israel for the November 2010 U.S. Congressional elections. AIAC held a press conference in Jerusalem.

AIAC Chairman Harvey Schwartz explained the initiative. "It is estimated that there are more than 100,000 potential American voters living in Israel. They have a right (and an obligation) to vote in – and can have a significant impact on -- the upcoming U.S. Congressional elections."

The congressional elections are viewed by many in Israel and America as a possible turning point which could swing the American government away from the policies of Barack Obama, who many say is anti-Israel. Scwatz insisted, though, that the AIAC campaign was not levelled against Obama. "This is most definitely not an anti-Obama campgain," he said emphatically. "This is a pro-American Israeli campaign."

AIAC plans to conduct a major campaign to register as many American voters living in Israel as possible to exercise their right to participate in the U.S. electoral process. "In these critical times," said Schwatz, "it is incumbent upon all Americans to vote for their choice of elected officials – and that includes the Americans living in Israel as well."

Schwatz noted, that in the past, many American Israelis have not voted in U.S. Congressional elections for a number of reasons:

1. They do not know that, as American citizens living in Israel, they have the right to vote in U.S. Congressional elections;

2. Even if they know that American Olim can vote, they think that their personal status – for example – children born in Israel to American parents, or lone soldiers – does not permit them to vote;

3. They do not know how to participate in the absentee voting process; or

4. They think their vote will not count. (make a difference)

AIAC has identified various groups of Americans in Israel who have never been targeted before for this type of campaign. One example is American post-high school students who come to Israel to study for a year or two. Another example would be American students attending Israeli colleges, such as Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, and Bar-Ilan University. A third example is children born in Israel to American parents. Depending on state law, they may be eligible to vote in Congressional elections even if they have never set foot in the United States.

Geocratography Poll: 62% Israeli Jews oppose additional unilateral withdrawal

(via IMRA). Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 adult Israeli Jews by Geocartography and broadcast on Israel Television Channel 1 on 27 July 2010 on a program marking 5 years from the Israeli retreat from the Gaza Strip.

Was the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip the right thing to do?
Yes 25% No 54%

Would you support another unilateral withdrawal?
Yes 21% No 62%

Did the disengagement strengthen or weaken Israel's deterrence?
Weakened 55% No impact 28% Strengthened 8%

Since the disengagement has your support for the settlers changed?
Increased 39% Reduced 14% No change 32%

Would there be a civil war if another unilateral withdrawal was carried out?
Yes 50% Maybe 18% No 21%

Cameron denounces Israeli blockade of 'Prison Camp" Gaza but forgets British crimes against our nation in the mandate years

"The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable, Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp."
(British PM David Cameron July 27 '10)

According to the BBC, no British prime minister has ever spoken so harshly of Israel's handling of Gaza.

Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to Britain, reacted quickly to the prime minister's remark, saying that Hamas is responsible for the misery in Gaza.

"The people of Gaza are the prisoners of the terrorist organization Hamas," Prosor said in a statement. "The situation in Gaza is the direct result of Hamas' rule and priorities."

The ambassador also raised the issue of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier taken hostage four years ago who is being held in Gaza.

"We know that the prime minister would also share our grave concerns about our own prisoner in the Gaza Strip, Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage there for over four years, without receiving a single Red Cross visit," Prosor said.

Cameron denounces Israeli blockade of "Prison Camp" Gaza. that is ruled by a government that is not recognized by any Country as a Nation or the right of a State of their own but is relatively young, therefore he forgets British crimes against our nation that had its right of their promised Homeland in the mandate years.

Israel Forum brings down the fact as it is:
When Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria only 2 states recognized this illegal occupation: Pakistan and Britain. When we build homes to our people in Judea and Samaria e.g in our eternal homeland then the British call it "illegal settle in the west bank".

Not surprising cause the British nation is one of the most hypocrite and cruel in the world which responsible to many crimes, including against our nation and it's time to talk about it.

When the British conquered the land of Israel (as they did to many other lands in the world) in WW1 they decided to establish a Judean house in the land of Israel (Bayit Yehudi be eretz Yisrael) but then they changed their opinion and decided to establish an Arab house in order to please the Arabs.

It's time to take a look at some of the British atrocities against our nation:

- The British closed the land of Israel to Judeans who were escaping from the nazis and by that sentenced their fate to be murdered in the death camps.

- It's a well known fact that the British (and also the other allies, when Bush and Condoleezza Rice visited Israel last year they visited Yad Va Shem museum. Bush asked Condoleezza Rice why the allies didn't bomb the gas chambers and she replied that they couldn't identify them in the camps. Bush answered that he would give an order to identify them and to destroy them from the air. This conversation of them was published in the Israeli media) refused to attack the railways that led Judeans to the death camps although they knew very well to where they led, they flew over them and filmed them, they heard the witnesses who escaped from these camps, they refused also to bomb the gas chambers and the incinerators. Judean survivors say that they would prefer to be killed in this kind of bombing from the air in the price of stopping the genocide. The British (and also the other allies who participated in the bombings) wanted that the nazis will murder more Judeans.

Hundreds of Judean pilots served in the US Air Force and begged to allow them to attack the gas chambers in the death camps but they got refused.

- The British instigated the Arab enemy to carry out terror attacks against Judeans in Israel and prevented from Judeans to hold weapons for self defense against these terror attacks. For example, the Black Sabbath in which the British eliminated the Haganah as a defensive force in one Saturday.

- The British officer Roy Farran kidnaped a 16 years old Israeli boy in the name of Alexander Robovich and smashed his head with a rock. The Hebrew Wikipedia, which is much more detailed and accurate regarding Israeli issues than the English one, and also mentions things that the English one doesn't want to mention, tells that in year 2004 a credible report of Colonel Bernard Ferguson was discovered in which he (Ferguson) says that Roy Farran murdered the boy. The Hebrew Wikipedia tells that when Farran heard that his army is going to put him on trial for murder, he escaped to Syria but then was convinced to return and was kept in custody but then escaped to Jordan but again had to return and in the end was brought to justice and guess what? Because his soldiers, who witnessed him murdering the boy, refused to testify against him, the court found him innocent.

These facts must be remembered!

Netanyahu meets King abdullah to discuss the need to hold "Direct,effective and serious negotiations" on all issues

(Ynet).Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday met with Jordan's King Abdullah in Amman. Jordanian media reported that the two leaders discussed ways to move the peace process forward based on the two-state solution.

According to the report, the two also discussed moves which could lead to an optimistic atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinians in a bid to launch direct negotiations instead of the current proximity talks.

Abdullah reiterated his stand that only peace could bring security and stability to the Middle East, the reports said. He called on all parties not to engage in moves which could "harm the aspiration for two states, which is a basic condition for creating regional stability."

Nir Hefetz, head of the National Information Directorate, said the meeting between Netanyahu and Abdullah lasted about two hours. He said it was "thorough and focused on the need to advance peace, security and prosperity in the region.

"The two leaders discussed the need to hold direct, effective and serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on all issues, in order to reach a stable, safe and durable peace settlement of two states for two people."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that his secret meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II was "very good". He said ideas for cooperation in the field of transportation were raised in the meeting, and added that the Jordanian king has no reason to object to a railroad track that links Eilat, Aqaba and Ashdod.

"I told the king of Jordan that we are going to connect the State of Israel with a network of roads and trains, and that we are starting to build a valley train from Haifa to the Jordan Valley," Netanyahu said at the National Security College's graduation ceremony on Jerusalem.

"King Abdullah said, 'We are also building a train to the same area, lets connect.'". Netanyahu added, "We spoke of the southern railroad track between Eilat and Ashdod, and I said there's no reason this line shouldn't be an Eilat-Aqaba-Ashdod line."

Netanyahu said he spoke with the Jordanian king about promoting peace and security with the Palestinians and the entire region. "I very much appreciate Jordan's desire to move forward with these goals and its contribution to stability in the entire region," Netanyahu said. He also noted that the parities discussed the possibility of cooperation in the fields of economy and energy.

The Netanyahu-Abdullah meeting is of great importance particularly in light of the anti-Israel remarks voiced by the Jordanian king over the past year. Abdullah has said that Israel is as "isolated as North Korea", and has repeatedly expressed his concern that a "political vacuum" could lead to a regional war.

Netanyahu also addressed the importance of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. "The region where we live has a lot of instability and a lot of dangers. We had peace with Iran. For years we had ties with them, but this peace did not withstand the changes that took place within Iran."

He warned that caution should be used. "We must have peace agreements that include a solution to the threats against us, because we do not want to repeat what happened when we withdrew from Lebanon and got an Iranian military base in the north, and we do not want to have what happened in Gaza, where a southern Iranian enclave was created with increasing armament."

Netanyahu said that Israel must preserve its ability to defend itself in the frame of the new conditions to be created in the region.

British PM Cameron in Turkey denounces Israel's blockade on Gaza as a Prison camp; claims Flotilla raid was unacceptable

(The Telegraph).David Cameron Speaking in Ankara, denounced the attack on the flotilla as ''completely unacceptable'' and restated his call for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a ''swift, transparent and rigorous'' inquiry.

But he also urged Turkey not to allow the incident to wreck its relationship with Israel.

Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has severely limited the movement of people and goods since 2007, has sparked outrage in Turkey, which provided the organisers and the bulk of the participants for the flotilla.

Today Mr Cameron said: ''The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions.

''Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.''And he added: ''The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable...And I have told PM Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous.''

The Prime Minister said he hoped that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians would take place within the coming weeks and urged Turkey to press the parties to come together by ''making the case for peace''.

He said: ''Turkey's relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value.No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world.

''I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel...But Turkey is a friend of Israel,And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.''

At a press conference alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Mr Cameron stood by his comments on Gaza, which he said were "warranted" by the situation there.

Mr Cameron added: "I speak as someone who is a friend of Israel, who desperately wants a secure and safe and stable Israel after the two-state solution has come about.

"It is very important that people remember that Israel will only agree to the final status issues if it feels that at the end of that process it will have the security that it craves.

"That is why on the issue of Gaza, while pushing for humanitarian access and the end of the blockade, we always have to remember that there have been rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel."

Mitchell presses Abbas to move to direct talks with Netanyahu if he wants Obama's help

(WashingtonPost).A senior U.S. envoy warned the Palestinian president that he must move quickly to direct talks with Israel if he wants President Barack Obama's help in setting up a Palestinian state, according to an internal Palestinian document obtained by The Associated Press on Monday.

The 36-page memo, sent to senior Palestinian officials, advised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resist growing U.S. pressure, warning that rescinding his conditions for face-to-face negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be "political suicide."

Abbas has said he won't resume talks that broke off in December 2008 unless Netanyahu accepts the idea of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, with some alterations, and freezes all settlement building there.

Netanyahu refuses to commit to anything before the start of talks, but has said he will not give up east Jerusalem. On Monday, he strongly indicated that he would not extend a 10-month freeze on housing starts in West Bank settlements beyond September.

The Palestinian memo was distributed just before a crucial meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on Thursday.

However, in recent days, the U.S. has stepped up pressure on Abbas to go to direct talks now.

In a July 17 meeting, Mitchell told Abbas that direct talks must begin soon in order to keep Obama engaged, according to the Palestinian memo, which summarized recent diplomatic efforts and was e-mailed to leaders of Abbas' Fatah movement.

Mitchell told Abbas that in the event of direct talks, the U.S. administration can push forcefully for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, according to the document. If Abbas refuses to negotiate, Obama may not be able to be of much help, get the settlement curb extended or prevent the demolition of Arab homes in east Jerusalem, the document said.

The envoy told Abbas he should seize the fleeting opportunity and not waste time, the memo said. He cautioned Abbas not to count on Netanyahu being replaced by another Israeli leader anytime soon, the document said.

In Washington, State Department officials would not confirm that the memo reflected Mitchell's exact words or talking points, but said that "this indeed illustrates where we are." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the negotiations.

Erekat confirmed that U.S. officials told Abbas that "if he wants Obama to help, then he needs to go to direct talks."

Erekat denied that Abbas was warned by Mitchell of the possible downside of refusing to go to direct talks or told that Netanyahu could remain in office for several more years.

Ehud Barak interview to The Washington Post on Hizbullah,Iran,Peace process and Relations with the US

Excerpts of interview by Washington Post's Janine Zacharia, with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Friday, July 23, 2010

WP: You arrive in Washington on Monday. What is the primary objective of your trip?

Barak: I will go to look into the situation, what can be done in order to give a momentum to the peace process, especially with the Palestinians, but without losing sight of other issues from regional security, to the Syrians but mainly the Palestinian issue. We have of course to see what's going on with our relationship with the American defense establishment. The administration is doing a lot to support Israel's qualitative military edge. At the same time there are considerations in Washington about moving forward with major deals with our neighbors and we want to make sure that we are in an understanding with the administration regarding to this issue as well and of course while I'm there we'll talk about other regional issues from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and, of course, Iran. I'll find an opportunity to meet with friends in the intelligence community and Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates, probably General Jones. While I'm in the United States I'll also meet with Ban Ki-moon and some other U.N. officials regarding remnants of the Goldstone report and what they plan regarding the [Gaza] flotilla, the review panel. Very busy schedule. Probably meet the press a little bit and some of the Congress leaders.

WP: What about the cost of relocating Jewish settlers back into Israel proper?

Barak: I think if we can get just loan guarantees for whatever will be needed for settlements that will suffice, but for security we might need an extra direct assistance. For the Palestinian side, it could be collected also from the European Union, from rich Arab, wealthy Arab countries. Some of them have sovereign funds of about a trillion dollars or more. I think that they can also give a shoulder to their Palestinian comrades.

I think that basically the situation right now is Israel is strong, self-confident and can afford taking the daring needed steps to put an end to the conflict and we have this kind of responsibility, should have our feet on the ground, and open eyed, with no illusions -- it's not North America, not Western Europe. This is a neighborhood where there is no mercy for the weak you know, or second opportunity for those who cannot defend themselves. But I think that we are strong enough and should be self-confident enough, to stretch our hand and be ready to make peace, keeping always our attention to the security arrangements.

WP: Does Prime Minister Netanyahu agree with you on the need for a bold peace initiative?

Barak: I think, you know, following the impact and the reports from his last visit to Washington, I think that he convinced the president that he is there. But of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have to prove it in actions in the negotiations and as I mentioned we should never lose sight of the need for a regional security architecture for the whole region through multilateral arrangements, agreements, how to fight radical terror, how to protect security and assure stability and how to face external threats from players like Iran.

WP: Can Syria be weaned from Iran and if so what should the United States be doing to try to accomplish this?

Barak: I think that a breakthrough in the peace process with Syria achieving what I couldn't achieve with Bashar al Assad's father, with Hafez al Assad, could be a game-changer in the region. I think that it's strategically important. If, through making peace with us, Syria can normalize its relationship with the free world and open the way for economic recovery for securing civil society and development and taking them somehow at a certain point out of the radical axis that could be a game changer.

I think that it contributes to moderate Arab interests, to the interests of America in the region and of course to Israel. We know all what is at stake. I think that both sides understand what kind of decisions they will have to make in order to move forward. And I think that the right time -- I can't tell you when it will happen -- but the right time hopefully not too late -- we'll be able to tackle this issue as well.

We expect that a byproduct of any breakthrough with Syria will be also opportunity to make peace with Lebanon and putting an end to this abnormality of the Hezbollah militia, kind of state within a state, it's a militia that has members in parliament, and ministers in the government, they have veto power in the government and they have their own independent or probably Iranian proxy, or Iranian-inspired independent policies towards Israel and an arsenal of tens of thousands of rockets.

WP: You have said Israel will hold the government of Lebanon responsible for any Hezbollah provocation. What does that mean?

Barak: It means that unlike what happened in 2006 where under request from the administration, [Secretary of State] Condoleezza [Rice] called at the time [Prime Minister] Olmert and asked him not to touch the precious government of Siniora, and we didn't. I think that they're responsible for what happens and if it happens that Hezbollah will shoot into Tel Aviv, we will not run after each Hezbollah terrorist or launcher of some rocket in all Lebanon. We'll see the government of Lebanon responsible for what happens, and for what happens within its government, its body politic, and its arsenal of munitions. And we will see it as a legitimate to hit any target that belongs to the Lebanese state, not just to the Hezbollah. And somehow, we are not looking for it. I am not threatening. We are not interested in such a deterioration. But being surrounded by so many proxies that operate not just under immediate threat under them, but probably activated by other players for external reasons, we cannot accept this abnormality and I believe that no other sovereign would have accepted it.

WP: What is the main difference now between the United States and Israel regarding Iran?

Barak: I think that the diagnosis became quite similar unlike the situation with the old, what was it NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] kind of document of several years ago when there was a difference. I think that observation of realities is coming closer, not just with the United States, basically with the European leading countries and more and more even the Russians and others understand that the Iranians are determined to reach nuclear capability. They are ready to dance in every arena. They are ready to defy and deceive and to cheat and to make diplomatic gestures and to renew them. It doesn't matter. They are determined to reach nuclear military capability and now it's still time for sanctions but do not be there forever and nothing short of much tighter sanctions could be if ever to convince them to stop it.

So we see about the diagnosis it's the same. Probably there are differences about what could be done about it, how should it be done, and what are the timeframe within which certain steps could be taken and beyond certain point cannot be taken because they are moving, they are accumulating more and more lowly enriched uranium and started only into medium enriched uranium.You know there are still two other stages but when they accumulate more and more material and more and more sites and more and more [are] dispersing it over more and more areas we should be observing all the aspects. We still believe that it's still time for sanctions but it will not be there forever. We recommended to friends and to colleagues all around the world not to remove any option from the table and we mean it.

WP: Do you think the United States is prepared to use military force if sanctions don't work?

Barak: I can't answer this question. I don't know. I think that the administration is serious about the nature of the threat, not just to Israel. It's a threat to any conceivable world order. We should understand a nuclear Iran means an inevitable new nuclear arms race in the Middle East that...It will intimidate Arab neighbors all around them, it will give a huge tailwind to the al-Qaeda, the Houtis in Yemen, the Somalis, Islamic Jihad, Lashkar-e-Taiba [in Pakistan], all these conglomerates of terrorist groups and it will start basically the countdown to a crude nuclear device in the hands of some terrorist groups. Even if such a countdown is going to take 10 years or 15 years, we are already too late to deploy for it. Just to think of the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf under a hegemonic Iran, kind of flows under the permission of the Iranians. That's something quite disturbing and I think that they are developing ground-to-ground missiles that now reaches Eastern Europe and some parts of Russia and some of the previous Soviet Union's Asian kind of members but in five years it might reach Western Europe.

WP: Can you elaborate more on the differences between the United States and Israel on Iran? Is it how much more time to give sanctions? When to bomb Iran?

Barak: I listened very carefully to the president's speech in Oslo when he got this Nobel Peace Prize. You couldn't miss the fact that it was extremely deliberate wording. And you see there something that few gatherings of Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies heard, of the need in this tough world to be ready to consider the use of force when all other options are genuinely exhausted. And it resonated in my ears with a speech that he gave many years ago before the start of the Iraqi war. War might be a necessity, cruel, tough thing you should do your best to avoid, but never lose sight of reality.

So I would not make predictions about what the administration could do if everything else won't work. I think that there [are] developments. If I watch to the extent I can see there is a change in the administration approach to this issue. It's not just change of phrases, they used to say 'it's unacceptable' and now they say 'we are determined' to prevent. I think that there is underlying basis; there are other things that are going on in this regard. It's not just making the rhetoric. I would not expect the president [to make] decisions in advance. But I think that the realities are coming to mind. You cannot ignore them. It's not the only threat when you look from our point of view. It's like you having nuclear, military effort somewhere in Cuba or Venezuela, that's the way we look at it. We think about it in much more concrete and immediate terms. You have also Afghanistan which has not yet been solved, Pakistan which could melt down at any moment which is a real strategic geopolitical nightmare. But I think Iran will still be a major test to the leadership of the free world in the coming years because if Iran can turn nuclear it's nothing to compare with the Soviet Union or China or even with India or Pakistan. It's an extremely radical state, somewhat messianic, which sponsors terror on a wide scale in many corners of the world. Think of it if Cuba would have developed a nuclear [arsenal]. And say explicitly they are going to destroy Florida or I don't know [the District of Columbia] has no right to exist. With our experience, our history, we take things seriously.

WP: Israel's patience seems to be dwindling regarding Iran.

Barak: I think that basically it's still time for sanctions. I think it's not a matter of years. It's not many years before we have to see. We believe in effective, doesn't matter how you call the sanctions, whether you call them crippling or paralyzing, or I don't know, lethal. I don't know. It should be effective, it should work. I don't see it working as of now. There were certain price to be paid for the coalition that imposed it...It has to include practically everything and we are not there yet and probably we cannot be there. Probably at a certain point we should realize that sanctions cannot work.

WP: What about the Palestinians?

Barak: We feel that we have to go from this somewhat artificial proximity talks into direct talks but of course once you are in direct talks we have to be able to put on the table the real issue and discuss all core issues.

The Israeli public elected a Knesset by which a government has been creating which is a right-wing government, (I represent the) center, left of center. I strongly believe that we have to establish or to strengthen our deep relationship with the United States within the context of a wider strategy of the free world in this region to face the real threats which are the radical terror, nuclear proliferation and rogue states, especially Iran and to be able to do it in a daring way. I believe, I believe -- it's not the formal position of the government -- that we should be ready to put on the table a plan which contains all the elements, namely realizing that there is a compelling imperative for us to have a two state solution be agreed upon and implemented before it's too late because between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean there live 11 million people if there is only one sovereign called Israel reigning over this region it will become inevitably even non-Jewish or non-democratic because if they cannot vote...if they can vote it's bi-national.

WP: Why are you sitting in a government with people who do not share your point of view on this?

Barak: I think we have to be able to delineate a border inside Eretz Yisroel in a way based on security and demographic considerations, where on inner side there is a solid Jewish majority for generations to come, on the other side demilitarized but viable independent Palestinian state economically, territorially politically, whatever. I think there is still an obstacle in Gaza, because they have about one half of their people and certain piece of ground and only access to the Mediterranean is there. It should be still solved within the Palestinian arena in a certain way. I believe that the Palestinian Authority should somehow resume its authority over Gaza.

WP: How? Should the Palestinian Authority do that?

Barak: I don't want to pretend to become omnipotent. It's important we should help the Palestinians' bottom-up effort and we are doing it to the extent we can't.

Barak: We should be able to concentrate on the settlement blocs, to establish security arrangements that will answer the previously mentioned considerations. We have to be able to bring back the isolated settlements into the settlement blocs or into Israel per se. We should find a way to deal with the Palestinian refugees issues in a way that [they] will be settled in a Palestinian state and to put [a] reasonable solution for Jerusalem that will keep our capital of course and somehow respect the heavily condensed or heavily dense Palestinians neighborhoods. And I think that it is possible. If we find during a direct negotiation that we cannot implement immediately all of it immediately probably we have to settle down for something like the second phase of the road map but it's up to both sides. We cannot impose it on the other side. So I basically believe that that's what we need to do. Now it's not a fully agreed upon policy within our government.

WP: Why is what you say relevant when the other major players in Netanyahu's government oppose what you say on this?

Barak: I think first of all that people are changing. If I compare the situation to Camp David 10 years ago, it's exactly 10 years ago, I was prime minister, at the time people like Ehud Olmert, future prime minister then mayor of Jerusalem, or Tzippi Livni was totally against it. Now they support it. I can tell you there is a drift, a gradual drift toward understanding thatit's urgent to reach a two-state solution among a wide silent majority in Israel.

The fact that [the] right wing won the election doesn't mean that the people doesn't understand what I've just said. It just means that they prefer to give the keys or the steering wheel for the negotiations not to some extreme leftist who seems to some people here to be utopian and probably not always cautious enough about security arrangements. But basically once we are in negotiations, I believe that the majority, great majority of voters for Likud, for Israel Beitenu of [Avigdor] Lieberman, and clearly for Kadima believe as I am, probably not happy to realize it, but understand that's the only solution. So I think the real need is to bring both sides into the room and start negotiations, overcome the Palestinian hesitation and probably overcome our own kind of considerations and moving into it because by waiting another decade or another half a generation will not change it, just will deepen the abnormalities or complicate the solution.

Netanyahu: Palestinians evading direct talks; Israel willing to begin direct peace talks 'as early as next week'

(ynet, Haaretz).Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday, "There is an obvious Palestinian attempt to evade direct negotiations." At the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting Netanyahu said, "As far as we are concerned, we are ready to start direct negotiations as early as next week."

"There is an obvious Palestinian attempt to avoid this move. If anyone had any doubts about our willingness, these doubts have disappeared. The Palestinians are trying to get out of direct talks and are trying to garner the Arab League's support."

He added that the Palestinians "continue to try to weave the reasons why they do not want to enter direct negotiations: At first they said it was the borders and the freeze. But we prepared ourselves and are ready to begin direct talks next week. These are the same issues that were raised with the American president. He knows that we are ready and willing to enter negotiations."

The prime minister also suggested that the attempt to sabotage the move to direct talks was not only conducted by the Palestinians, saying there are "parties who are not enthusiastic both internationally and in Israel," perhaps hinting at leading opposition party Kadima.

"Unfortunately, not all those parties are found outside Israel, and I'm not referring to my colleagues from the right-wing parties of the coalition." He refused to elaborate, but did say that "if you invite me to the subcommittee, things will get very interesting."

Regarding future security arrangements, Netanyahu said that the "arrangements reached with the Palestinians must be such as to withstand any changes in the political and security Middle East map."

"The Palestinians must hold firm even if an eastern front develops, as was the case, for example, before the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime," Netanyahu said, reiterating that any security arrangements with the Palestinians must "stand the test of time."

"We won't compromise security,and that's why the U.S. administration has been notified of our security needs."

On the subject of the West Bank settlement construction freeze, the prime minister said he had not intention to extend the 10-month moratorium, saying "the slowdown was limited in time: It has not changed and that's how it will be."

Commenting on his meeting with US President Barack Obama, Netanyahu said it was "blunt" and that the two spokes "Openly, heart-to-heart."

"President Obama announced that we are reading and willing to start negotiations. These talks will certainly be difficult, but are preferable. Only direct negotiations will we be able to raise the issues of our security demands and interests."

Former CIA Chief Takes Hard Line on Iran: US Military action against Iran "seems inexorable"

(WSJ).—A former Central Intelligence Agency director on Sunday said that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities "might not be the worst" option for the U.S., as the country continues to push ahead with its nuclear programs despite heavy international sanctions.

Michael Hayden, who headed the CIA from 2006 to 2009, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that when he was in government, a military strike against Iran "was way down on our list." Now, "in my personal thinking—I need to emphasize that—I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes," he said.

Iran has said that its nuclear program is aimed at peaceful purposes including generating energy for civilian use, but the country has blocked international experts from inspecting its facilities.

The U.S. and others in the international community have sought to pressure Iran with sanctions.

President Barack Obama earlier this month signed into law sanctions that would impose tough penalties on any international firms that do business with Iranian banks, energy firms and the businesses of Tehran's elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Mr. Hayden said such moves appeared to be having a limited effect. "Iran doesn't seem to be paying much attention to the sanctions," he said. "We engage. They continue to move forward. We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward."

Left to its own devices, he predicted, Iran "will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage, so the needle isn't quite in the red for the international community."

He said that that stage would be as destabilizing as Tehran's actually having a weapon.

Related:

Pipes: To Get Obama To Act, Netanyahu Should Threaten To Nuke Iran

In a recent interview with the right-wing Christian Zionist Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, neoconservative pundit Daniel Pipes shared his view that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should threaten to use nuclear weapons against Iran as a means of “applying pressure” on the United States.

“I think it’s realistic for the Israelis to attack and do real damage,” Pipes said. “Now, what constitutes success, I’m not exactly sure. There are many, many questions“:

PIPES: If I were [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, I would say to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, “Why don’t you take out the Iranian nukes? Or else we will And we will not do it by trying to fly planes across Turkey and Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. We will do it from submarine-based, tactical nuclear weapons. You don’t want that; we don’t want that; but that’s the way we can do this job for sure. You do it your way so we don’t have to escalate to that.” That would be a way of applying pressure. There are so many details which I’m not privy to. But that would be my kind of approach if I were the Israelis.

Howard Berman, chairman of the House's Foreign Affairs Committee Talking points for Democrats hailing Obama's support of Israel

(JTA) -- Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) distributed talking points to fellow Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives stressing support for Israel by President Obama and Democrats.

Thursday’s memo declared that Obama and the House Democrats’ support for Israel are both unprecedented. Berman is chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and is Jewish.

“I think you will find [this document] useful to make the case that House Democrats and the President are as good if not better than any Congress or Administration that has come before,” Berman said in an email to Democrats in Congress.

Republicans bidding for the Jewish vote in November's midterm elections are trying to tie Democratic Party candidates to Obama, in the wake of months of tension over Israel's settlement policies. The two governments say they have now put the tensions behind them.

The approximately two dozen talking points emphasized that Obama has stressed the need for Palestinians to recognize the Jewish character of the state and that he has made Iran a top priority in every meeting with world leaders. They drew attention to Obama’s commitment to providing Israel with financial and military aid.

The statement listed the bills and resolutions passed in the House since October 2009 regarding Israel. Among these was a resolution in January 2009 stating that Israel has a right to defend herself, and a bill sanctioning Iran in June.

Below the jump, Berman's short note to his colleagues, and the talking points.

The Democratic-Led Congress and President Obama Provide Unprecedented Support for Israel

President Obama

• More than any of his predecessors, this President has repeatedly talked about the importance of the Palestinians’ recognizing the – quote -- “Jewish” state of Israel.

• President Obama is leading the global push to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The President has stated that it is “unacceptable” for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. Recently, thanks to the Obama Administration’s hard work, the United Nations Security Council passed a fourth round of sanctions (UNSCR 1929), the strongest yet -- a remarkable diplomatic achievement. UNSCR 1929 brought Russia and China on board for UN sanctions on Iranian arms purchases; Iran’s banking, finance, shipping, and energy sectors; and designations of the IRGC and other proliferation-related entities.

• President Obama has spent more time trying to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions than any other foreign policy issue and it’s something he raises as his top priority in virtually every conversation with world leaders.

• President Obama and Democrats in Congress have provided Israel with every single penny of foreign assistance appropriations that Israel has asked for. In 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that calls for the U.S. to provide $30 billion in security assistance over the following 10 years. President Barack Obama has strongly supported the 2007 agreement. As part of his fiscal year 2010 budget, the President requested $2.775 billion in aid to Israel, which completely fulfills the second year of the MOU. This year the President asked for $3 billion in aid to Israel, and the Congress will make certain the President’s request is fulfilled.

• Under President Obama, Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, or QME, is being reestablished, after having been neglected for too many years, and the U.S. and Israel have achieved new levels of close security cooperation. Later this year, the Pentagon is likely to sell Israel an initial batch of 25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the most advanced aircraft in the U.S. arsenal, and other sensitive technology.

• Prime Minister Netanyahu noted on July 7, 2010, that: “The alliance between Israel and the US is stable and strong. It has the support of the American administration and people. My visit to the US last week gave tangible expression to strength and durability of this unbreakable bond. In my meeting with the US President, we had a comprehensive and excellent discussion in which we covered a broad range of issues.”

• The Obama Administration has demonstrated its hard-nosed support of Israel at international forums and its uncompromising and effective opposition to efforts to de-legitimize Israel. For example, the Administration has led a global effort to prevent the Goldstone Report from gaining traction or credibility within the international community. That ill-conceived, biased report still has life in the UN system, and the Administration is fighting it tooth-and-nail.

• The Obama Administration is opposing attempts to launch a politically-tainted international investigation into Israel’s self-defensive measures in stopping the Turkish-led flotilla to Gaza. The Administration has stood behind its ally Israel in supporting Israel’s own investigation.

• The Obama Administration refused to participate in the Durban-Two conference on racism last year strictly because of its intention to single out Israel unfairly. That must have been a very difficult decision for a newly-inaugurated African-American President, but President Obama stood impressively firm.

• The Obama Administration played a critical role in achieving a unanimous, 31-0, vote at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, to ensure Israel’s accession to one of the world’s most exclusive economic associations . Thanks to the Administration’s help in bringing Israel into the OECD, Israel will be able to advance its economy to unprecedented levels.

• President Obama’s famous Cairo speech marked an Arab world first: an unprecedentedly strong affirmation of the – quote – “unshakeable” bond between the U.S. and Israel and an unprecedentedly frank discussion of the Holocaust, in the heart of a region rife with Holocaust denial. As Ambassador Michael Oren said of the Cairo speech: “This is a President who has gone to Cairo, has made a speech in which, for the first time in history, an American leader introduced the idea of Israel’s legitimacy to the heart of the Arab World.”

• In the first eighteen months of the Obama Administration, there have been numerous separate high-level visits of US officials to Israel. The visitors include Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Advisor James Jones, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen. This type of high-level attention is reserved for only the closest allies.

• The United States and Israel recently completed their largest-ever joint military exercise. The three-week Juniper Cobra 10 air defense exercise involved deployment of a thousand U.S. troops, from all four branches of service, alongside an equal number of Israel Defense Forces personnel, taking part in simulated war games intended to ensure the two countries can jointly respond to a crisis. The Juniper Cobra exercises involved the use of the long-range X-band radar, the most advanced system in the world for warning of missile-launches.

• The Obama Administration has integrated U.S. missile defense technology into Israel's expanding anti-missile shield. This is something that no other American President has done, and it is a move of immense strategic importance that has largely been overlooked by the Jewish community and by the foreign-affairs community at-large. The Administration also will continue to fund development of the Arrow-3, the most advanced variant of Israel's long-range, high-altitude system for countering Iranian ballistic missiles.

• President Obama asked Congress for $205 million to support Israel’s deployment of the Iron Dome rocket defense system, which will reduce the threat from Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s short-range rockets. The $205 million requested by the Administration, and quickly authorized by the House of Representatives (H.R. 5327 “United States-Israel Rocket and Missile Defense Cooperation and Support Act” - introduced by Rep Nye (D-VA)), is in addition to the $3 billion budgetary request the Administration had already made for security assistance for Israel.

• In October 2009 the Turkish government withdrew landing rights from Israel in Turkey and refused to allow Israel to participate in a NATO exercise. In protest, the Obama Administration withdrew US forces from the exercise.

• The Obama Administration has reaffirmed sanctions against Syria and strongly condemned Syria’s transfer of Scud missiles and other arms to Hezbollah. Israeli Defense Minister Barak is regularly in Washington, DC, to meet with President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates to discuss the close US-Israel coordination on military and intelligence issues concerning Syria, Iran, and other threats.

House Democrats

• In June 2010, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2194, The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, a bill introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA). Signed into law by President Obama July 1, the new measure introduces an array of tough new economic sanctions and penalties aimed at persuading Iran to end its nuclear weapons program. Targets of the Act range from business entities involved in refined petroleum sales to Iran or support for Iran’s domestic refining efforts to international banking institutions involved with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s illicit nuclear program or its support for terrorism. The bill augments the sanctions regime envisioned in the earlier versions of the Act passed by the House and the Senate in December 2009 by supplementing the energy sanctions in those versions with an additional, powerful set of banking prohibitions. It also plugs an important gap in our sanctions regime by sanctioning companies that sell Iran goods or services that help it develop its energy sector.

• In January 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.Res.34 which recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirms the United States' strong support for Israel, and supports the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. H.Res.34 was introduced by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

• In June 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2410, the “Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal years 2010 and 2011”. This bill, introduced by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), authorizes appropriations to Israel; amends the Arms-Export Control Act to authorize the President to export spare and replacement parts or components of defense items to Israel; amends the Arms Export Control Act to require the Administration to certify that an arms sale to another Middle Eastern country does not threaten Israel's qualitative military edge (QME); authorizes appropriations for co-development of missile defense projects with Israel, including the Arrow, David's Sling, and Iron Dome systems; and expresses the sense of Congress that Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Iran as well as from terrorist organizations and the countries that harbor them.

• In October 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1327, the “Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009”. This bill, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), authorizes state and local governments to divest their portfolios of companies that invest in Iran. It is now a part of the new Iran sanctions law (H.R. 2194).

• In October 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2647, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This bill, introduced by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) Israel is one of the strongest allies of the United States; (2) the United States remains vigorously committed to supporting Israel's welfare, security, and survival; (3) Israel and the United States face common enemies; and (4) the United States should continue to provide Israel the critical security assistance it needs to address existential threats.

'There's A Double Standard When It Comes To Israel': The Jewish Press interview with NY GOP senatorial candidate Jay Townsend

The November midterm elections may well alter the political face of this country. Opponents of Obama administration policies have galvanized their forces and are eager to make their voices heard to the American electorate.

One of those people is Jay Townsend, a GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate from New York who will be seeking to unseat incumbent Sen. Charles Schumer.

The Jewish Press: You started your career as a political consultant. What made you decide to throw your own hat into the ring?

I was very inspired last January when the people of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to fill the Senate seat that had long been held by Ted Kennedy, a liberal Democrat. Massachusetts voters were outraged by the prospect of the health-care reform bill that was looming in the Senate and wanted a candidate who vowed to vote against it.

I called GOP party leaders in New York and asked if we had anyone who could or would challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer - a fervent supporter of the health-care reform legislation and the Obama agenda. The president's plans for "change" in America scare me and many others to death and I decided to become a candidate.

Concerning the Obama administration's position on the burgeoning Iranian nuclear threat, do you think the latest round of economic sanctions will prove fruitful and what path do you believe the U.S. should take on this?

I don't think that we're serious about enforcing these sanctions. We must come to the realization that we have enemies in the world and we have to stop pretending we can negotiate with these enemies. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only understands brute strength. Clearly, the nuclear threat emanating from Iran is indeed imminent. The imposition of sanctions on Iran will only prove to be another feckless attempt at stopping the nuclear threat unless we convince other countries to participate fully.

We should try and enlist the help of the European Union, Japan and state owned banks and we must make the sanctions systematic. Basically, my argument with the Obama administration is that you cannot be patient with a tyrant and that is what Ahmadinejad is. He is never going to like us and we had better get accustomed to that.

There has been a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Israel, with the administration pressuring Israel to relinquish parts of Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state along with the settlements in Judea and Samaria. Do you think the creation of a Palestinian state is in America's best interest and would you support an Israeli strike on Iran as former UN Ambassador John Bolton has suggested?

Israel is our closest and best ally and deserves to be treated as such. I felt Obama used the first year of his presidency to rub Israel's nose in the dirt. Senator Schumer refused to voice his opposition to this. Look, if President Bush had done to Israel what Obama is doing, Schumer would have vociferously protested.

I don't believe Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. That is patently ridiculous. I don't believe the creation of a Palestinian state will bring peace to this war-torn region and I vehemently oppose the creation of a state that would represent an existential threat to Israel's security. I would certainly support Israel's right to defend itself against the Iranian nuclear threat; that would be in America's best interest as well.

Over the last six months, Senator Schumer has held press conferences on such inane issues as airline baggage fees, the increase of salt in cheeseburgers, sunscreen and Facebook but he won't utter a word of protest regarding the president's treatment of Israel. Senators can make noise and they are indeed in a unique position to make such noise and I plan to do just that.

The demonization of Israel is growing at alarming proportions not only on our college campuses but also throughout the world, especially in Europe. What would you do in the Senate to help stop this phenomenon and how would you work to support Israel's position vis-a-vis the U.S.?

I believe our support for Israel cannot be limited to uttering platitudes. It is America's best interest to ensure that Israel possesses access to the best military technology available. The prime minister of Israel's responsibility and obligation is to the safety, welfare and health of his nation and its citizens and he should not be excoriated for doing so.

Israel should never be held to a standard we wouldn't hold ourselves to. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Israel demanded that the U.S. negotiate with leaders of countries that deny our right to exist? That would never be tolerated, so why should Israel be expected to tolerate that kind of nonsense? There's a double standard when it comes to Israel and Schumer knows this. Why is he afraid to call his president on the carpet for doing this? Why doesn't he finally stand up for the constituency that elected him?

World leaders urge Abbas to renew direct talks with Israel

(Haaretz).The U.S. administration and a string of international leaders did their best this weekend to persuade Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to agree to move from indirect to direct talks with Israel. One highly placed Jerusalem figure said the Mideast Quartet had decided last week on the pressure play.

Over the weekend, Abbas heard in turn from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Each called on Abbas to announce this Thursday, at the Arab League foreign ministers' summit in Cairo, that he is ready to move to direct talks. All three leaders promised to support him and to head off any Israeli foot-dragging during the talks.

Abbas heard the same last Thursday from Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, who delivered from Jerusalem the message that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was serious about negotiations with the Palestinians. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in a press conference over the weekend, also said that direct talks should start as soon as possible.

In addition to pressing Abbas, Washington took an indirect approach to get Egypt and Jordan to recruit the support of fellow Arab League members for a resolution in favor of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. U.S. President Barack Obama called Jordan's King Abdullah II on Friday to make his arguement, while on Thursday Vice President Joe Biden held a similar conversation with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

It is believed that Abbas is standing up to the pressure, and that the Palestinians have not eased their conditions for moving to direct talks: an end to all construction in the settlements, including in East Jerusalem; and Israel's agreement to a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with some territorial exchanges.

The Jerusalem source said the Quartet - comprised of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - decided on the coordinated campaign of persuasion after representatives met in Jerusalem last week.

The pressure is expected to increase until Thursday's Cairo summit, where Abbas will present the Palestinian Authority's position on the talks with Israel and seek the Arab League's support for its position.

The U.S. administration and the other Quartet members are hoping that, as a result of their gambit, Abbas will propose renewing direct negotiations with Israel. The assumption is that the Arab League will support whatever decision Abbas makes.

Thousands gather at annual CUFI conference - Whatever happens, Israel can always count on U.S. evangelicals

(Haaretz).Thousands of Christians from across the United States descended on Capitol Hill on Thursday in order to lobby Washington lawmakers on behalf of Israel.

Organizers of the event, called Christians United for Israel, showed their strength by lobbying over 85 percent U.S. Congress offices.

Attendees of this year's gathering are visibly different from those in the past: about one in five of the 5,000 participants was from a Hispanic Church.

“Last year we had about 300 Hispanics, but this year we started specific outreach to the Hispanic churches where Spanish is a language of worship”, says David Brog, the executive director of CUFI. “We have started an outreach to African-Americans. It was always our goal to broaden our base ethnically, geographically and theologically”.

Yet despite the attempt to reach out to traditionally left-leaning minority groups, Democrats are few and far between at the conference.

“We are determined to be bipartisan, we always invite Democrats but typically we get better answers from the Republicans”, says Brog.

Democrats' reluctance might have something to do with CUFI's relations with activists on the right wing of Israeli politics.

In May, CUFI leader Pastor John Hagee wrote in an op-ed in The Forward newspaper that “we will never, never oppose Israeli efforts to advance peace".

Yet Hagee has courted controversy with by offering financial backing to some settler organizations.

“Pastor Hagee gives away a lot of money each year," says Brog. "Last year he gave away approximately 10 million dollars and over 95 percent of it went to charities within the green line. About 5 percent went to humanitarian projects over the green line. Almost all of it went to the areas that will be within the Israeli state following the agreement. With limited exceptions he hasn’t been a really big supporter of settlements. It has not been a focus of his giving and it certainly hasn’t been the focus of his advocacy."

“CUFI stands for supporting an Israeli democratically elected government,” he said. “I noted from the audience that a large majority at the Capitol Hill supports a two-state solution. There is no need to get into an argument about it, that’s not our point."

The scuffle was just another more sign - if any were neede that one Christian response Israel can always count on is backing from U.S. Evangelicals.

“Harry Truman, who recognized Israel 11 minutes after its creation, was a member of the evangelical group American Christians for Israel, " Israel's ambassador, Michael Oren, told delegates.

Sixty-two years on, it seems Israeli governments on both sides of the poltical divide have done nothing to diminish that support.

Finally feeling US pressure! Abbas complains: Obama is being unclear

(Jpost).Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday criticized US President Barack Obama for failing to provide him with clear answers to a number of questions regarding the future of peace talks with Israel.

Abbas also confirmed that Obama has been exerting pressure on him to enter direct negotiations with Israel.

Abbas was speaking during a closed meeting of members of the Fatah Revolutionary Council in Ramallah.

Abbas was quoted by some Fatah operatives as saying that Egypt and Jordan supported the PA’s refusal to move to direct talks unless progress is first achieved on the issues of security and the future borders of a Palestinian state.

“We can’t go to direct negotiations like blind people,” Abbas was quoted as saying.

“We can’t enter direct negotiations without clarity.”

Abbas complained that Obama recently sent him an oral message urging him to launch direct negotiations with Israel unconditionally.

According to the PA president, Obama’s message was “unclear and ambiguous.”

Abbas was quoted as saying: “With all due respect to the American president, his message was not clear. We want to clear answers to questions we presented to the Americans, especially regarding security, borders and the status of Jerusalem. We continue to insist that any negotiations with Israel be based on recognition of 1967 as the future borders of the Palestinian state.”

Abbas said that the US administration has also failed to give the Palestinians a clear answer with regard to Israel’s policy of settlement construction.

“Before we go to the negotiations, we want clear answers on the borders and settlements,” Abbas stressed.

He is also under pressure from Fatah to reshuffle the cabinet of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad so that it would include more ministers from Fatah.

Der Spiegel: Arabs support Israeli attack on Iran if thats what it takes to stop nuclear Iran

(Der Spiegel).Israel and the Arab states near the Persian Gulf recognize a common threat: the regime in Tehran. A regional diplomat has not even ruled out support by the Arab states for a military strike to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.

This makes the words uttered last Tuesday by the UAE's ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, in Aspen, Colorado, more than 12,500 kilometers to the west, all the more interesting. Otaiba was attending a forum at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival, and the mood was relaxed, or at least it was too relaxed for diplomatic restraint.

The discussion revolved around the Middle East. When asked whether the UAE would support a possible Israeli air strike against the regime in Tehran, Ambassador Otaiba said: "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."

These were unusually candid words. A military strike, the diplomat continued, would undoubtedly lead to a "backlash." "There will be problems of people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country," he said.

But, he added, "if you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."

Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman said afterwards that she had never heard anything like it coming from an Arab government official. Otaiba, she added, was "astonishingly honest."

Notwithstanding the shocking nature of his remarks, Otaiba was merely expressing, in a public forum, "the standard position of many Arab countries," says Middle East expert Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for The Atlantic Monthly who moderated the panel discussion in Aspen.

The fact that some Western politicians are unfamiliar with this position has to do with their own ignorance, and with the diplomatic skill with which the smaller Gulf states, in particular, have managed to hide their opposition to their powerful neighbor until now.

"The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for one hundred years. The Arabs and the Persians have been going at (it) for a thousand," argues Goldberg on The Atlantic's Web site.

Almost all Arab neighbors have a hostile relationship with the Islamic Republic. Saudi Arabia suspects Iran of stirring up the Shiite minority in its eastern provinces. The Arab emirates accuse Iran of occupying three islands in the Persian Gulf. Egypt has not had regular diplomatic relations with Iran since a street in Tehran was named after the murderer of former Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat.

Jordanian King Abdullah II warns against the establishment of a "Shiite crescent" between Iran and Lebanon. And Kuwait, fearing the Iranians, installed the Patriot air defense missile system in the spring.

Arab governments are concerned about a strong Iran, its nuclear program and the inflammatory speeches of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They share these concerns with another government in the Middle East -- Israel's.

Never have the strategic interests of the Jewish and Arab states been so closely aligned as they are today. While European and American security experts consistently characterize a military strike against Iran as "a last option," notable Arabs have long shared the views of Israel's ultra-nationalist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. If no one else takes it upon himself to bomb Iran, Saudi cleric Mohsen al-Awaji told SPIEGEL, Israel will have to do it. "Israel's agenda has its limits," he said, noting that it is mainly concerned with securing its national existence. "But Iran's agenda is global."

Quinnipiac poll: 48% US voters say Obama doesn't deserve to get reelected; 46% Disapprove of his handling of foreign policy

(Quinnipiac).A year after President Barack Obama's political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 - 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a narrow 39 - 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 48 - 43 percent approval for Obama in a May 26 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 57 - 33 percent approval last July, just before the political firestorm created by opposition to his health care plan galvanized political opponents and turned independent voters against him.

American voters also say 48 - 40 percent Obama does not deserve reelection in 2012.

"It was a year ago, during the summer of 2009 that America's love affair with President Barack Obama began to wane. In July of 2009, the President had a 57 - 33 percent approval rating. Today, his support among Democrats remains strong, but the disillusionment among independent voters, who dropped from 52 - 37 percent approval to 52 - 38 percent disapproval in the last 12 months, is what leads to his weakness overall when voters start thinking about 2012," said Peter A. Brown., assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

The country would be better off if John McCain had won the 2008 election, 37 percent of voters say, while 35 percent say the U.S. would be worse off. This compares to 37 - 35 percent who thought in January the U.S. would be worse off under McCain.

Asked to describe their feelings toward the President, 17 percent say they admire him; 33 percent are satisfied; 33 percent are dissatisfied and 15 percent are angry with him.

"The Republican tilt of the electorate little more than 100 days before the 2010 election is evident, but not overwhelming. Republicans hold a 43 - 38 percent lead on the 'generic ballot,' compared to a 42 - 34 percent Democratic lead in July 2009," said Brown. "What a difference a year makes."

Voter approval of the President's handling of some of the nation's problems shows:

* Disapprove 56 - 39 percent of his handling of the economy;
* Disapprove 46 - 43 percent of his handling of foreign policy;

Netanyahu to Ashton: I'm willing to take political risks for peace

(Haaretz).Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the European Union's foreign policy chief that he is ready to take a political risk to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, but only if he does not have to take a security risk, sources say.

During talks with Catherine Ashton, Netanyahu reiterated that he seeks to move forward quickly if direct negotiations with the Palestinians begin. He believes it would be possible to reach an agreement with the Palestinians within a year. A deal would then be implemented gradually over a number of years.

Netanyahu spoke as diplomacy geared toward launching direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority has not yet produced results. Washington and Jerusalem are hoping that officials at the Arab League Summit on July 29 will convince PA President Mahmoud Abbas to agree to direct negotiations.

Meanwhile, Israel is preparing for the end of the freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank, due in late September. The members of the forum of seven senior ministers are divided on the issue, and Netanyahu is ambivalent.

In recent weeks Netanyahu has coordinated efforts to move toward direct talks with the Palestinians. In recent day he has tried to rally the support of Ashton, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and the head of the international Quartet, former British prime minister Tony Blair.

Netanyahu is also trying hard to avoid the sensitive issue of the future of the construction freeze. He has not offered a clear position on the issue so as not to prevent the talks from moving to a direct phase. He says the freeze has not produced the results he had hoped for - direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

Martin Indyk's Postcard from Jerusalem and Ramallah - Shift in mood signals a growing ripeness for Peace

(Brookings-FP trips).On a June 24-30, 2010 visit to Jerusalem and Ramallah, during which he met with the top Israeli and Palestinian leadership, Martin Indyk sensed a shift in mood, which could well signal a growing ripeness for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Ramallah looks like a boomtown. The West Bank economy continues to grow at a robust 11 percent, fuelling a Palestinian desire for normal life after a decade of intifadah-inspired suffering. There is no appetite for a return to violence among West Bank Palestinians; a sentiment that appears to be shared by their counterparts in Gaza, where the easing of Israel’s closure holds hope for a new beginning.

Strangely, the Gaza flotilla crisis seems to have bolstered the sense among the West Bank leadership that it is time to try to strike the deal with Israel. Abu Mazen, buoyed by his meetings at the White House and with American Jewish leaders, appears to be ready to move into direct negotiations with Bibi Netanyahu. He is flexible about the necessary fig leaf to make this possible – he is just looking for a credible explanation he can give to the Arab League, which mandated his participation in the current “proximity talks.” If Israel were to permit Palestinian police to resume control of “B Area” villages (where the Israel Defense Forces retain overall security control), and declare that there would no longer be IDF incursions into “A Area” cities (where the Palestinian Security Forces are supposed to have full responsibility) that would probably do it. He intends to continue a campaign of public diplomacy designed to convince Israelis and their American Jewish supporters that they have a Palestinian partner for peacemaking. He is even ready to address the Knesset.

In Israel, the public mood is in flux..The Israeli public also knows the price for peace with the Palestinians: the relinquishing of all the West Bank, save the settlement blocs, shared sovereignty in Jerusalem, and a deal on Palestinian refugees that compensates them for their suffering but denies them the ability to return to Israel. Until now, Israelis have shown little interest in pressing their leaders to make that deal. They felt there was “no partner” on the Palestinian side, so there was no point. But that was before the advent of an American president who defined the U.S. national interest as requiring a settlement of the Palestinian problem. And that was before their government bungled the interception of a flotilla bearing aid for Gaza, triggering a wave of international condemnation.

Suddenly, Israelis feel alone in the world and fear for their future. They have always lived with a sense of existential dread, but in recent years, as the intifadah waned and the Israeli economy rebounded from the global recession – beaten only by China – Israelis began to enjoy their newfound prosperity and calm. This growing sense of security has now been punctured, driving them at first into a collective crouch, and an instinctive rallying behind their embattled government.

But as they contemplate their circumstances, the public is becoming impatient. They sense that their ship of state is no longer on an even keel. In recent times both the Mossad and the Israel Defense Forces have bungled straightforward operations, doing great harm to Israel’s strategic relations with Turkey and its reputation in the Arab world. If Israel faced such international condemnation from intercepting a flotilla, how will it fare if it attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, or bombs Lebanese infrastructure in retaliation for Hezbollah rocket attacks? Israelis are now contemplating these questions and wondering whether dependence on deterrence and force alone is enough to secure their future. Perhaps their prime minister needs to take the diplomatic initiative?

That is certainly what his more moderate advisers are urging on Netanyahu. President Shimon Peres, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, feel that Israel can no longer remain stalled and on the defensive even though they have a good deal of sympathy for Netanyahu’s political circumstances. They are all convinced that he must find a common way forward with President Obama. Last week’s White House meeting was critically important in that regard because Netanyahu seems to have succumbed to their arguments and proposed a series of gestures toward the Palestinians that should be sufficient to generate direct negotiations and perhaps avoid another argument about extending the settlements moratorium when it expires in September. Did he also indicate to Obama that he knows what he has to do on West Bank territory? If the President’s effusiveness after their one-on-one meeting is any indicator, he may well have done so.

Can Netanyahu make peace while maintaining his right-wing coalition? The latest effort to secure more peacemaking running room by bringing Kadima into a broader governing coalition seems bound to fail. Tzipi Livni appears keen to join the government if Netanyahu is serious about making peace, but Bibi is apparently fearful of the zero sum nature of the deal: if Livni is in, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will likely leave and that will render Netanyahu dependent on Livni for the survival of his coalition. He apparently prefers not to rock the boat. And that means, even as he enters direct negotiations, he will continue to be constrained by coalition partners who do not believe in the two state solution.

Lieberman is unlikely to leave the government if Netanyahu proceeds into direct negotiations with Abu Mazen, if only because Bibi will then have no choice but to bring Kadima into his coalition, leaving Lieberman to languish in opposition. Nevertheless, he too understands the need to do something that can get Israel out of the corner. Consistent with his lodestar of separation from the Palestinians, he has launched his own initiative to have the EU replace Israel as the provider of water and electricity to Gaza. Another sign of his recognition of the Israeli mood-shift is that Lieberman has publicly resurrected his proposal for including Arab villages from Israel’s Galilee in the land swap required by the two state solution.

Interestingly, Iran is not preoccupying Israel’s leaders for the time being (Bibi apparently put it aside during his meeting with Obama to focus on the Palestinian issue). This is in part because they are satisfied with the new UN sanctions and the unilateral steps that the U.S. and Europe are now taking to give them some real teeth. They have also taken note of Obama’s toughening rhetoric (“I am determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”) and his rejection of the Brazil/Turkey initiative to head off sanctions. And they see the Iranians struggling with their centrifuge enrichment program: Ahmadinejad’s announced target is 15,000 centrifuges operating in 10 sites to produce 10,000 tons of low enriched uranium (LEU). So far only 3,000 centrifuges are operating in two sites and they have only produced 2,000 tons of LEU. In the Israeli assessment, the Iranians will need a robust breakout capability to make the risks of acquiring nuclear weapons worthwhile and they don’t have it – at least for the time being. This is why some Israelis speak about combining tougher sanctions with more robust covert efforts to slow the Iranians down.

In summary, Israel is now focused on the Palestinian issue, there is public support for a diplomatic initiative, and Abu Mazen also seems ready to engage in direct negotiations. Even in the Middle East, a crisis can sometimes produce an opportunity.

UK PM Cameron: It is time for direct talks between Israel & Palestine; Iran must abandon nuclear hopes

US President Barack Obama has called his country's relationship with the UK "truly special", following a meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron.

The president said the world was "more secure and more prosperous" when the UK and US worked together.

During their three-hour meeting, the leaders discussed Afghanistan, the Middle East- Peace process and Iran, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the economy.

Speaking at the Press Conference Mr. Cameron said that both he and the President agree on PM Netanyahu's call for direct peace talks, and stressed the need of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians at this time, saying that "we desperately need a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians that provides security, justice and hope.

"It is time for direct talks not least because it is time for each Israel and Palestine to test the seriousness of the other," Cameron added.

Regarding Iran , Cameron said: Iran must abandon its nuclear hopes, saying that "Iran must give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. We urge the Iranian regime to resume negotiations with the international community."

"It is not too late," Cameron added. "American and Britain, with our partners, stand ready to negotiate and to do so in good faith. But in the absence of a willing partner, we will implement with vigor the sanctions package agreed by the United Nations Security Council."

President Obama commented too on that matter - that Iran must understand that the path of defiance against international pressure over its nuclear program will bring more isolation.

"We remain committed to a diplomatic solution. But the Iranian government must understand that the path of defiance will only bring more pressure and more isolation," Obama said.

"The Iranian government must fulfill its international obligations," Obama went on to say, adding that "the new sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, the United States and other countries are putting unprecedented pressure on the Iranian government."

"I thanked David [Cameron] for Great Britain's efforts to ensure strong European Union sanctions in the coming days," the U.S. president added. "

Netanyahu 1, Abbas 0 for vision and strategy in the Diplomatic Peace process

(James Besser's Political Insider).Whether or not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a strategic vision for peace I'll leave to the experts in the mysteries of Israeli politics. One thing I can say with confidence: in the day-to-day diplomatic trench warfare with Palestinian leaders, he looks like a genius.

The latest example: his ongoing call for direct Israeli-Palestinian talks, which has now become a refrain of the Obama administration.

I don't believe for a minute Netanyahu wants direct talks that delve into critical final status issues like refugees and Jerusalem; either he never wants that to happen, or he thinks Israel still lacks a credible Palestinian partner for such weighty negotiations at this time. You pick.

But advocating direct talks in the face of the Palestinian insistence on indirect “proximity” talks that are almost guaranteed to go nowhere makes Bibi look like the guy who wants to move this peace process forward and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas like the foot dragger.

So what does Abbas do? He digs in his heels and says no direct talks until Israel stops all settlement activity.

I also don't believe for a minute Abbas wants serious negotiations; he'd rather sit back and wait, almost certainly futilely, for America to push Israel into making deep concessions without having to do anything on his own, like stopping incitement. Or he just doesn't trust Netanyahu to be a viable negotiating partner. You pick

Still, the smart thing for him to have done would have been to say “great, direct talks, let's start tomorrow, and let's talk about Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, water....”

Then Netanyahu would have had to come up with some good explanations for why he said he wanted direct talks, but what he meant was direct talks that avoid the core issues of the conflict – which is to say, not real negotiations at all.

Instead, Abbas managed to make Netanyahu look like the guy who wants peace talks while he just wants...who knows what he wants?

Sometimes I wonder if the Obama administration grasps this fact: both Abbas and Netanyahu want peace in some abstract sense and both may have a vague understanding that eventually there will have to be compromises – but neither is anywhere close to accepting the big political risks that will inevitably result from such compromises.

Maybe each has good reasons for that reluctance, maybe it's that both are purely political creatures more interested in their own political survival than in moving toward peace or maybe both secretly cling to maximalist fantasies about the region's future. You pick.

But I suspect it's the governing reality in the region. Maybe the Obama is finally starting to realize that and is backing off from an enterprise that is almost certainly on the fast track to nowhere. Meanwhile, score one for Bibi and a big goose egg for Abbas, at least in the short-term maneuvering that passes for vision and strategy in the Middle East.

The Guardian: Why Israel keeps moving to the right? - Israeli's growing distrust of the external World

(Carlo Strenger-The Guardian).Israel has been sliding into ever greater isolation in the few last years and this process has accelerated since Binyamin Netanyahu came to power in 2009. The international community is put off by his tactics: whenever the question of Israel's settlement policy comes up, he diverts attention to the Iranian nuclear threat. He argues that the world is facing a situation similar to 1938, and that its reaction is that of Neville Chamberlain, trying to appease Adolf Hitler. The world doesn't buy Netanyahu's rhetoric; his policy of stalling the peace process is perceived as a cynical ploy hiding Israel's true intent of holding on to the territories.

This explanation fails to take into account that Netanyahu's rhetoric reflects a paradoxical state of mind of the Israeli electorate. Polls show that a consistent 70% majority of Israelis favouring the two-state solution. So why has Israel's electorate been moving consistently to the right in the last decade? Why is Netanyahu's popularity in Israel so high? And why is Israel's public less willing than ever to listen to criticism of Israeli policies?

This development can be elucidated by a universal tendency of the human psyche uncovered by existential psychology in the last two decades. When under threat, particularly mortal threat, humans tend to defend psychologically by entrenching in their world views. These world views, which include identity narratives of righteousness, become ever more rigid under these circumstances, leading to growing distrust, hatred and negative prejudice against out-groups. Criticism of the in-group and its world view is rejected categorically.

This theory predicts that Israel's move to the right reflects a sense of existential threat. To outside observers this may seem absurd, given that Israel is a regional superpower generally assumed to have a substantial nuclear arsenal, whereas the Palestinians don't even have a standing army. Nevertheless all polls show that Israel suffers from deep anxiety about its viability.

Part of the explanation is quite concrete: Two realistic threats have indeed emerged in the last years. The first is the possibility that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, a threat that most Israelis see as catastrophic. The second is that groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have moved from suicide terrorism to rocket attacks on Israel. Israel, for the first time since 1973, is faced with security threats to which it has no clear-cut answer. As a result, Israel launched massive attacks in Lebanon in 2006 and against Gaza in 2008-9 under the assumption that the price of rocket attacks must be destruction on a substantial scale. This has pushed Israel into unprecedented international isolation.

Israel's electorate reacted to this sequence of events exactly as predicted by existential psychology: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli public was unwilling to tolerate any criticism of the massive destruction in Gaza, and in the 2009 elections it moved strongly to the right and effectively erased the Israeli left.

The result is a vicious circle in which Israel feels that its existential fears are not taken seriously. Israel's electorate moves towards leaders who address but also keep reinforcing its fears. International opinion becomes ever more negative, which in turn reinforces Israel's isolation which in turn raises existential fears.

This has one, very unfortunate, consequence. Israel's best chance of minimising the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah and minimising Iranian influence in the Middle East is to engage with the Arab League peace initiative. If Israel were to normalise relations with all of the Arab and most of the Islamic world, particularly Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas would be isolated to the point of having to move towards abandoning violence and recognising Israel's legitimacy.

Taking this road requires Israel to take a risk and bet on the positive dynamics of a peace process. But this is precisely what Israel is incapable of doing after the traumas of the second intifada and the shelling of southern Israel. Israelis at this point prefer international isolation, painful as it is, to reliance on Arab peace partners for its own security.

Are there any ways to get Israel out of its growing distrust of the external world? Experimental existential psychology suggests two main means: one is, obviously, lowering the real or perceived mortal threat. The other is to decrease the sense of isolation.

The Obama administration has addressed both issues lately. It is stepping up security co-operation with Israel and increasing its military aid, particularly to allow Israel to complete the Iron Dome anti-missile defence system developed to provide an answer to the short-range rockets used by Hezbollah and Hamas.

Barack Obama has also changed course in that he has given Netanyahu a warm welcome after more than a year of giving him the cold shoulder. This, as most commentators assume, does not reflect a policy change: Obama is adamant to go ahead with implementing the two-state solution, but he has come to the conclusion that embracing Israel is a more effective way of getting there than to isolate it.

Is-Real? WSJ: Republicans have a chance of regaining power in Congress and Senate in November

(JOHN FUND-WSJ)..."Under pressure, the Democrats are cracking," reports Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for MSNBC. "On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a realization that Nancy Pelosi's hold on the speakership is in true jeopardy; that losing control of the Senate is not out of the question; and that time, once the Democrats' best friend, is now their mortal enemy."

Gloomy Democrats note that their poll numbers have slipped so badly that Republicans could win the 10 seats they need to recapture the Senate. "I think there is definitely a chance" of losing the Senate, Democratic strategist Gary Nordlinger told the Wall Street Journal. "I wouldn't call it a probability, but there is certainly a chance."

The data that most concern Democrats are the generic ballot numbers, where voters express a preference for one party or another in House races. A new Bloomberg poll gives Republicans a 48% to 40% lead among likely voters, a far bigger margin than the GOP enjoyed just before the 1994 landslide that gave Republicans both houses of Congress. Even in California, which Barack Obama carried by 22 points, Democrats are struggling. A new Field Poll finds Democrats with only a three-point edge in the generic ballot question. That suggests Democrats could end up losing two or three seats in one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. "If things remain that close in California, it will be a bloodbath in the rest of the country," a leading Democratic consultant told me.

A Politico poll published today shows Bad news for Obama in 2012 - Obama would lose his re-election bid against a generic Republican candidate by 5 points, 37-42. Obama does not break 40 percent against other likely contenders, some of whom are known by very few voters. His numbers are stuck in the high 30s against Mitt Romney (the
closest contender, who’s already within 4 points of Obama) Pawlenty,Huckabee and Barbour...If these contenders become actual candidates, they still have a chance to shape their image and tell the story they want voters to hear, driving up their support; by contrast, after four years in office, perceptions of and support for Obama will be pretty well fixed.