Israel News Net

Bret Stephens for the Wall Street Journal recently wrote an op-ed piece about Why Israel Hasn’t Attacked Iran. Although he has received numerous accolades from around the world, I am surprised at his war hawking in this piece.

First off, Israel completed a rocket tracker yesterday that can shoot Hezbollah and Hamas rockets out of the sky. Nice. That kind of defensive warfare not only sounds cool, but will likely keep Israelis safe.

Stephens runs through the ideas as to why Israel has not yet blown the Iranian reactor to pieces, of which include the unlikelihood of success, time biding, internally jarring Israeli politics, and a history of European intercessions, should anything arise.

He writes, “There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let’s hope so.”  Oh, Mr. Stephens. I’m not the anti-Israel, give peace a chance toting blogger that you commonly come across, but at least I recognize that in the 21st century, any kind of “military options” for peace aren’t going to work.

The world is too interrelated – take the flotilla for example. What if Israel bombed Iran? The whole world would effectively abolish the Jewish state. But same goes for Iran – if they even touched Israel, the West would come down way hard on them. So everyone plays it cool. Israel’s got the defense, Iran can waste their money on W.M.D. Everyone’s happy, right?

With President Obama set to mediate proximity talks again between Israel and Palestine, there is still much debate as to what it means to have American intervention in the process, especially among American Jews.

Elie Wiesel (Left).

For many on the right, supporting the Obama administration is akin to denouncing Israel as a state. But many young, liberal American Jews desire peace in the Middle East, and wish that the heads of government were more willing to compromise. This is actually the majority of American Jews, according to a New York Times article, which also notes that American Jews who voted for Obama still support his decisions, but that Israeli support of Obama has plummeted.

Today, Obama had lunch with Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, to try to assuage some of the hostility directed towards his administration’s tactics. The writer pronounced tensions between the two states as over, but in Israel there are still feelings of animosity.

With talks set to begin in the region later this week, there is speculation as to how the Israeli government will lean when it comes time to compromise. Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister has reassured Israel that it will defend the border against Hamas attacks, but that doesn’t seem as dedicated as the Israelis want, especially with the necessary approval of the Arab League lingering in the background.

At the largest convention of world leaders in Washington in more than 50 years, President Obama can point to making progress. With Russia and Ukraine working to cut back on stockpiles of Uranium and bombs, and China with the U.S. on Iran sanctions, Israel should feel confident.

Israel remained absent from the meeting, however.  Speculations vary, but many suspect that the Obama administration’s censure of Israeli nuclear capability would have been discussed at length.  Others remarked that Prime Minister Netanyahu declined to attend because Arab countries would have focused on Israel’s nuclear program, goading Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel warned the U.S. that it will not accept any ultimatums regarding peace talks. While King Abdullah II of Jordan urged the U.S. that its engagement in the process is necessary, and that if the U.S. doesn’t impose a timeline on certain requisites, the process will be interminable.

On the other hand, Syria, it seems, has given Hezbollah Scud missiles. These rockets have a distance of 435 miles, which endangers Israeli cities and hurts Syrian-American relations, weak as they are.  All of these developments signal no further step toward compromise in the Middle East.

In Gaza, the tunnels that lead to Egypt are a key mechanism for the transportation of goods.  They have recently been multiplying like rabbits, fueling illegal trading of supplies that Israel has outlawed, in turn, dropping prices and leading to rebuilding of the areas that Israel bombed last year. Overall, Gaza is in much better shape than the West Bank, which often gets mired in Israeli bureaucracy. Yet Hamas remains politically isolated from the other Arab countries in the region.

In the West Bank, nonviolent efforts for peace are taking root – literally. Palestinians are planting trees and inviting peace mongers like MLK III and Gandhi’s grandson to the region in hopes that a peaceful resistance will lead to a Palestinian state. Public support for military approaches has dipped below 50%, a large factor in prompting these small efforts.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., President Obama has been discussing with officials the possibility for putting forth a treaty. Fears rest on possible Israeli rejection of a proposal, and the subsequent refusal of Palestinians to work with anything less than what the U.S. puts forth. While details remain uncertain, a sharing of Jerusalem and a return to 1967 borders would be certain. Likely would be an Arab recognition of Israel as a state and U.S. or U.N. troops stationed along the Jordan river to prevent paramilitary attacks.

With things going the way they have been, look for an American attempt at fostering peace talks in the imminent future.

It has recently been argued in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal that the Westernization of the world is not related to Palestine, and infuriates jihadists nevertheless; that no matter the cause, Islamists would find reason to hate America.  Westernization, Bret Stephens suggests, will be embraced by few and rejected by many, as is always the case with liberalism, until the passage of time shifts what used to be liberal into the norm.

In response, Thomas Hegghammer of The Economist argues that Palestine isn’t the only part of what drives anti-American sentiment across the globe, but the state itself certainly does matter. The Economist, a British weekly magazine, takes a more moderate stance than the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, pinions of the right and left, respectively.  It is important to note that according to Hegghammer, images of dead Palestinians accelerate recruitment of anti-American jihadist groups.

While it would be naive to think that assuaging Palestine’s worries and fears will bring about peace in the Middle East, it does seem logical that if Palestine were to be placated in some manner, anti-American sentiment would die down among the Arab league. Was the rebuke of Israel then the Obama administration’s charade to get on the good side of the Islamists who burn American flags? Probably. Does that mean that it worked? It’s too early to tell.

Talks between Netanyahu and Obama wrapped up after tensions between the two governments flared over the past few weeks.  Recently, the U.S. has urged Israel to yield to its requests to forego building in Jerusalem, but Israel asserts its right to build in its capital.

The Obama administration has softened its approach to Iran’s building of nuclear weapons in hopes of winning Chinese and Russian approval. The Israelis, in return, have announced a small 20 unit housing project in a mostly Arab neighborhood, Sheikh Jarrah.

Obama wants Israel to move into peace talks by tackling the big issues – border negotiation and refugee return, topics which ruffle Jewish feathers, especially with the upcoming Arab League meeting encouraging the attendance of Hamas. Unfortunately for Abbas, any endorsement from the league must play in favor of anti-Israel sentiments, which would further stifle any peace efforts in the region.

The Obama team also wants Netanyahu to ditch his Orthodox backing, in favor of the Kadima party led by Tzipi Livni. Chances are, however, that peace talks will be slow in coming if Palestine plays for Arab support and Israel  garners Orthodox support.

The Obama Administration has condemned the Israeli comments about building new homes in Ramat Shlomo, leading to the absence of warmth and fuzziness in the American-Israeli relationship so characteristic of preceding American presidencies. Obama believes the only way to peace in the region is a two state solution, and that the way to achieve this is through compromise.  Chances are President Obama will take a hard line with both Israel and Palestine, but for the former this may seem a pugnacious attempt to improve American standing in the Middle East, at the expense of Jewish-American relations.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is hawkish when it comes to Israeli rights, but the renewed violence in the Gaza strip only underscores the need for a peaceful solution in the form of two states. If, as Obama hopes, he is able to coerce Palestine into severing their ties with Iran, the while enforcing Palestinian leaders to recognize and appreciate a Jewish state, perhaps Netanyahu will surrender certain parts of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. That’s a lot to ask for, especially from a state that harbors such large extremist groups. Some have suggested financial compensation to move Palestinians out of the area, others have scoffed at the possibility for peace at all, but for Obama, forming ties to Syria and other Middle East countries are the focus. It seems that  rather than lashing out against American enemies, Obama is trying to foster pro-American sentiment within those countries by scorning pro-Israeli action.

The success of the upcoming proxy peace talks will determine not only the relationship between Israeli and Palestine, but that of Israel and America as well.

Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel on Tuesday to call for negotiations between Palestine and the Jewish state and to dissuadeIsraelis from unilateral military actions against Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Calling the U.S.’s ties to Israel “unshakeable,” the Vice President arrives on the eve of indirect peace talks between Palestine and Israel, which mediate through American ambassadors in Ramallah.  Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians’ chief negotiatior believes that this will be one of the last chances for a two state solution and that Palestinians are willing to yield a large part of the West Bank in exchange for a parcel of equivalent sized land.

Israel is hesitant to oblige Palestine because of their association with paramilitary groups. Mr. Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, wants to retain Israeli military presence on the country’s eastern borders. Ceding of land to Palestine would also require more than half a million Jews relocate.

Biden’s trip serves to mediate between the two states, but more than anything, its purpose is to back Israel’s confidence as a lone satellite in a constellation of extremism. Essentially, Biden as figurehead, is attempting to quell the Israeli fear of Iran’s nuclear program.  The best way to determine the kind of job he is doing is by following the peace talks, the first in over a year, over the course of the next few months.

Following the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti on Tuesday, the Jewish community has been at the forefront of relief efforts, with much of the push coming directly from Israel. The earthquake, ranked a 7.0 on the Richter scale, devastated the impoverished nation of Haiti, particularly the capital city Port-au-Prince. Experts estimate a death toll in the thousands, with hundreds more still trapped under the rubble caused by the Haiti earthquake damage.

The Israel Forum for International Humanitarian Aid, IsraAID, sent a group of twelve search and rescue workers to the Caribbean country. Many Jewish nonprofit organizations have also raised and donated money, and the Israel Defense Forces are likewise offering their support.

Groups like IsraAID have doubled their efforts by partnering with organizations in the United States, including the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.

Reports indicate that several Israelis were living in Haiti, including Sharona Elsaieh, who is the daughter of Abie Nathan, an Israeli peace activist and humanitarian who died in 2008. Elsaieh, along with two other Israelis living in Haiti, are currently unaccounted for.

Thirty-nine young people from Gaza applied to attend a peace education workshop sponsored by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, or IPCRI, which was held recently in a school in Beit Jala.

Thirty-five of them were denied entry by the Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF, and did not have the opportunity to join the 70 other Israelis and Palestinians who spent the weekend in dialogue, debate, disagreement and agreement, rejoicing in the mutual recognition that we all want peace and that peace is possible.

Actually, all 39 Gazans were denied entry, but we managed to get agreement to allow four people to come. The refusal of the army to allow their entry had nothing to do with security; the army officer in charge even told me so. This is the policy and the army is implementing that policy.

What exactly is the policy and why was it designed, you ask? The policy is to completely isolate Gaza from the rest of the world so that the people of Gaza can be convinced that they should take action against the ruling Hamas government. The policy is that no one leaves Gaza. Period.

Of course there are the exceptions – those with immediate humanitarian needs. There are also some other exceptions – judgment calls made by the commander of the Erez crossing – that is how we managed to get four young people from Gaza to attend our peace education workshop and that is how roughly five businessmen get out of Gaza every day as well.

But even with all of these exceptions, more than 1.5 million Gazans are trapped inside this tiny and crowded piece of land, with no right of movement into and through Israel or into and through Egypt.

This policy is actually supposed to convince the people of Gaza that Hamas is their enemy and that they should rise up against them. Analysts in the army and in the security forces claim that the policy is working because public opinion research shows that there is a decline of public support for Hamas in Gaza. This might be true – there is no way we can really know what has brought about a decline in public support for Hamas – but it is very unlikely that the economic siege is the reason.

Gazans are really suffering. This is what we heard from the four who joined us for the workshop. This is what I continue to hear from dozens of other friends that I speak with regularly all over the Gaza Strip. They all report the same thing. While most average Gazans – the secular and non-fundamentalist people – are paying the price of the siege, Hamas activists and Hamas-connected entrepreneurs have become the nouveau riche.

The underground economy has created the need to establish a Ministry of Tunnels with a full policy of tax collection for goods coming into Gaza, as well as for the time used for their transport. At the same time, the factory owners, farmers and shopkeepers who were dependent on trade with Israel have gone bankrupt. What was once the mainstream of Gazan society, a kind of middle class, has been decimated by the policies aimed at making them turn on Hamas. This will not happen.

The majority of Gazans are broken. They have lost hope. They have no strength for a long, drawn-out struggle. They feel detached from the world, an abandoned people – “even God has forgotten us” – one of them said.

The four people who left to meet Israelis took a big personal risk. They were stopped by Hamas on the way out and they were stopped and questioned upon their return. The other 35 who couldn’t get out were willing to demonstrate the same courage.

We told the army, check all of them; if there are any who are a security risk, don’t let them out. But the policy is not about security, so they were not even checked by the Shin Bet, Israel’s security agency. I cannot find the logic in prohibiting young people from Gaza from meeting with Israelis. Is the government implementing an anti-normalization campaign?

Ironically I find myself often encountering Palestinians in the West Bank who refuse to meet Israelis because they see it as “normalization” with the enemy while the occupation continues. To them I always say, “Please explain to me how you not meeting with Israelis is advancing your struggle. How will you liberate Palestine and end the occupation by not talking to Israelis?”

I don’t get it. I say to them, if you want to end the occupation and liberate your land and create your state next to Israel, go and meet with Israelis from the Likud and from Yisrael Beiteinu, don’t boycott them – that has no logic to it at all. So I say to the government, if we want to change the regime in Gaza without reoccupying it, we must change the hearts and the minds of the Gazan people.

One of the young participants from Gaza said, “My father, who used to work in Israel, told me that he knew many Israelis who wanted peace with us, but I never believed him. After being here this weekend, I now know that there are Israelis who want peace as much as we do, and some even more than us!”

Israel’s current policy is not only not working, it is counterproductive and it is morally wrong. Collective punishment against a civilian population will never create future partners for peace. If we want to weaken Hamas, end the economic siege. If we want to bankrupt Hamas economically, open the passages for trade – it will put the tunnels out of business. If we want to build partners for peace, enable thousands of Gazans to come out to meet with Israelis. If we want change in Gaza, we have to change the way we treat Gaza. Hamas is the enemy, the people of Gaza are not.

* Gershon Baskin is co-chief executive officer of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org) and an elected member of the leadership of the Green Movement political party. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from The Jerusalem Post.