Arlene from Israel

Just yesterday plans were finalized for launching the first stage of a major effort aimed at securing the acceptance of the Levy Report.

You will find an article about it here:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/restoring-israels-rights-the-levy-report/

But I want to take the time in this posting to provide a bit of background and explain what the report is and why it is important. (And those in Israel, please see all the way to the bottom.)

~~~~~~~~~~

The Jewish claim to the land of Israel — certainly including all of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria — is solid. It is predicated first on our ancient history in the land. Jews are, in fact, the indigenous people here, having maintained a continuous presence for almost 4,000 years. Our ancient heritage actually can be found not in western Israel, but in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria.

In addition to heritage, there is solid legal precedent for our claim to the land — via the San Remo Conference, the Mandate for Palestine, and more.

For at least 20 years, however, there has been a concentrated delegitimization campaign waged by the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters that attempts to discredit our rights to the land.

The perception that Jewish rights to the land have been diminished has been fueled by Palestinian Arab leader Mahmoud Abbas and his cohorts, who – in insisting ad nauseum that Israel’s proper place is behind the “1967 border” – reveal themselves to be major advocates of the dictum that, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Of course this business of a “1967 border” is a lie: there was no border established to Israel’s east after the War of Independence ended in 1949, only a temporary armistice line. The armistice agreement was not even with a “Palestinian people,” but with Jordan. Nor did Security Council Resolution 242 require Israel to pull back fully from Judea and Samaria, which was secured defensively during the Six-Day War in 1967.

But why bother with facts when a myth more favorable to the political interests of the Palestinian Arabs can be successfully generated? Today, a good part of the world believes that Judea and Samaria consist of “Palestinian land,” which Israel must “return.” The president of the United States speaks in such terms. Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, called “settlements” (pejoratively), are referred to either as “illegitimate” or “illegal,” and the stumbling block to peace. Eastern Jerusalem, today part of the united capital of Jerusalem under full Israeli sovereignty, is called “Arab Jerusalem.”

~~~~~~~~~~

This Palestinian Arab myth could not have been successfully generated had successive Israeli governments self-confidently and persistently presented truths to counter the lies. Regrettably, since Oslo, this has rarely been the case. While no Israeli government has ever declared Judea, Samaria and the eastern part of Jerusalem to be “Palestinian land,” some have skirted close to embracing this position by behaving “as if.” Some Israeli leaders to the left have swallowed the notion in its essence, speaking in terms of what the Israelis owe the “Palestinians.” Some others are ideologically opposed to any such concept but timid about bucking a position that is politically correct internationally.

In other places you may read about the “competing” Israeli and Palestinian Arab “narratives” concerning the land. You will not hear that from me. There are not two “narratives” of equal weight that are simply a matter of perspective. There is the truth about the situation, and there is the invented narrative — the deliberate lie crafted for malign political purposes. Regrettably, many of our own leaders have not spoken the truth boldly enough for some time now.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not ideologically committed to a “Palestinian state.” His problem, rather, is that he is timid before the international community. He prefers to “play the game,” believing — mistakenly — that in doing so he will lessen the pressure on Israel and accrue favor for Israel in the international community.

In January, 2012, Netanyahu appointed a committee – popularly referred to as the Levy Committee – to examine the status of Israeli building in Judea and Samaria. Edmund Levy, former Justice of the High Court, headed the committee; its other members were Alan Baker, international lawyer and former adviser for the Foreign Ministry, and Tehiya Shapira, retired Tel Aviv District Court Judge.

The Committee’s Report, which was released on July 8, 2012, is 90 pages long in the original Hebrew. (Only summaries exist in English.) It consists of both conclusions and recommendations and provides legal arguments and research.

The accusations currently being leveled by the international community against Israel as a violator of “international law” because of building in Judea and Samaria are countered by the Levy Report conclusions. That is, because of both historical and legal factors, the decades-long presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria is not “belligerent occupation.” Israel’s situation is unique (sui generis) and Israel has the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria.

The Report then offers a number of important recommendations, consistent with the conclu­sions, regarding adjustments in Israeli policies and practices in Judea and Samaria. These recommendations would clarify the rights of Israeli citizens living in Judea and Samaria, who currently find themselves at a serious disadvantage: The Israeli legal system default there favors Arabs.

~~~~~~~~~~

I have it from an impeccable source that when Prime Minister Netanyahu first saw the Report, he declared, “Ah, this is just what we need.”

But information about the report was leaked, and Netanyahu, confronting the international furor that would result from its official adoption, did an about-face. The Report, which was to be referred to the Ministerial Committee on Settlements for discussion, was tabled. To this day, it sits in a drawer somewhere, effectively never having seen the light of day.

And so, the Levy Report disappeared from the radar screen of public awareness. But it was not forgotten by Israeli activists and politicians with a nationalist orientation, who understood its enormous importance.

In the fall of 2012, a small group of seasoned activists (including yours truly) formed an ad hoc committee to pursue plans for securing the adoption of the Report by the government. International lawyers and politicians were consulted, the political climate was assessed and assessed again; and plans for a campaign evolved through several permutations. Persons and organizations of prominence who would lend their names to the campaign were sought. Additionally, and necessarily, backers to provide funds were secured.

As the plans for the campaign have coalesced over the last few months, the Campaign Committee has become convinced that the timing is right.

This is, first, because of the farcical “negotiations” with the Palestinian Authority. If there are going to be such negotiations (certainly not advocated by the Campaign Committee) it is important that Israel negotiate from strength, and this means stating Israeli rights without equivocation. There is scant time to delay on this. It’s one thing to concede that Israel “must” withdraw from at least part of Judea and Samaria, because this is “owed” to the Palestinian Arabs, and quite another to say that it is Israeli land by right and any concessions to the Palestinian Arabs would be a matter of choice and discretion.

Then there has been an encouraging shift within the government, with a greater number of ministers and deputies who are nationalist or who tend to be opposed to the notion of a Palestinian state, such as: Moshe Ya’alon; Naftali Bennett; Danny Danon; Yisrael Katz; Tzipi Hotovely; Ze’ev Elkin; Uzi Landau; Yair Shamir; and Uri Ariel. Add to this list Yuli Edelstein, Speaker of the Knesset.

Lastly, there is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s second Bar Ilan speech of October 6. Instead of speaking of a “two state solution,” as he had previously, he emphasized Jewish rights in the land. A change of tone that many consider significant.

~~~~~~~~~~

And now, at long last, the Levy Report Campaign is kicking off.

The Campaign Committee is operating with the assistance of Regavim, a fine Israeli organization that works “to ensure responsible, legal & accountable use of Israel’s national lands and the return of the rule of law to all…aspects of the land.” (See http://regavim.org.il/en)

The campaign is envisioned in two stages – first within the Knesset and then more broadly within the public domain.

It is so new that neither a name nor a logo are yet in place. But the services of the educator who will work with the members of the Knesset have been secured. There will be major social media aspects to this effort, as well as organizational work done within the Knesset – in large part by Knesset members themselves – to generate significant and sustained support for the Report. Already, members of the Knesset approached informally have expressed considerable enthusiasm.

The goal of the campaign, of course, remains acceptance of the Levy Report by the government. Right now a process is being set in place that will take time to unfold, step-by-step. It would be foolish and unrealistic to anticipate immediate acceptance. First the climate must be created.

The Campaign Committee believes this effort will provide support for the prime minister, so that he is bolstered from within the nation – and thus better able to resist outside pressures. As well, the campaign should, in time, shift public perceptions regarding Israel’s rights.

As the campaign progresses, I will, of course, follow through with additional information.

~~~~~~~~~~

A word about sovereignty. The committee is certainly not ideologically opposed, but is not promoting this — and takes no position on the specific form it might take — because in our opinion it is premature. There will be no serious action towards sovereignty — either over Area C or all of Judea and Samaria — until the government of Israel first declares our RIGHT TO THE LAND, and there is broad public understanding of that right. This is what the Levy Report is about. It is a vehicle for changing the paradigm of thinking. We believe it lays the necessary ideological/legal groundwork for what will follow.

~~~~~~~~~~

Readers, please note that we are seeking support in two respects. First, we have a coalition of organizations that are supporting our venture in principle. If you are associated with an organization that would like its name added, or would like information to that end, please contact me.

And then, while sufficient funds were raised to kick this off, additional money is required for an aspect of the campaign that has been added since the budget was drafted. If you are interested in more details and think you might be able to help, please! do contact me.

~~~~~~~~~~

I was not going to deal with other issues in this posting, but there is one topic that must be addressed now: The Cabinet has voted to release 26 more prisoners (terrorists) tomorrow, in line with a commitment made by our government to the PA at the start of “negotiations.”

The decision to carry through on this, in spite of PA behavior — incitement, etc. — is causing considerable dissension in the country, and within the government — with Habayit Hayehudi in particular protesting this as immoral.

This is the Netanyahu who concedes for the sake of keeping the US and international community happy. These terrorists should not go free.

There will be a demonstration tonight, 7-9 PM, at the prison at Ofer, with a human chain formed around the prison. There will be buses running from Binyanei Ha’uma in Jerusalem, but reservations must be made. For reservations or more information, call: 072-2156-213. And see http://www.myisrael.org.il/action/ for more information, as well.

Arlene from Israel

“Back to Normal” (whatever “normal” means)

Some days ago, I had shared with my readers the fact that there would be a hiatus in my writing both for personal reasons and because of a major project. As to the personal reasons, I am functioning without major distraction now but advise you that, down the road, I may again be focused on other matters for a period of time during which I will not be posting.

As to the major project: I look forward eagerly to sharing the details in a day or two, in a posting devoted primarily to this.

Today’s posting will be, as I indicated, “normal.”

~~~~~~~~~~

What strikes me is that in the duration of time during which I have not been posting, nothing of major significance has shifted. It’s essentially more of the same, with slight variations and permutations. The same nonsense. The same outrage.

One on-going source of outrage is the manner in which an anti-Israel EU is conducting itself. And so I would like to begin by sharing a part of Caroline Glick’s column from this past week, entitled, “Israel’s European challenge.” Writes Glick (emphasis added):

“…In mid-September, the IDF enforced a High Court of Justice order to destroy 250 structures built illegally by Palestinian squatters in the Jordan Valley. The High Court acted in accordance with the agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel. Those agreements gave Israel sole control over planning and zoning in the Jordan Valley and throughout the area of Judea and Samaria defined in Area C.

“Five days after the IDF destroyed the illegal structures, Palestinian activists arrived at the site with tents. Their intention was to act in contempt of the law and the agreements the PLO signed with Israel, and to resettle the site.

“The Palestinians did not come alone. They were accompanied by European diplomats. The diplomats were there to provide diplomatic cover to the Palestinians as they broke the law and breached the agreements PLO signed with the Israeli government.

“This would have been bad enough, but in the event, one European diplomat, Marion Castaing, the cultural attache at the French Consulate in Jerusalem, decided that her job didn’t end with providing diplomatic cover for lawbreakers. She joined them. She punched an Israeli border policeman in the face.

“Rather than apologize to Israel for using European diplomats to support Palestinians engaged in criminal activity, and for Castaing’s shocking violence against an Israeli soldier lawfully performing his duties, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton attacked Israel.

“Ashton called the tents, presumably paid for by European taxpayers, ‘humanitarian assistance’ and declared, ‘The EU deplores the confiscation of humanitarian assistance carried out by Israeli security forces yesterday in Khirbat al-Makhul.’

“‘EU representatives have already contacted the Israeli authorities to demand an explanation and expressed their concern at the incident. The EU underlines the importance of unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance and the applicability of international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territories,’ Ashton said.

“The EU’s role in financing illegal Palestinian building efforts in the Jordan Valley is not unique. For some time, in contempt of Israeli law and the arrangements signed between Israel and the PLO, the EU has been financing illegal building by Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

“In recent months, there has been a palpable escalation of European hostility toward Israel…”

~~~~~~~~~~

“Outrage” is a fairly apt description of what transpired here — what continues to transpire. The Europeans are growing increasing blatant in their anti-Israel positions. There is nothing subtle about their behavior. And please note that they fall back upon allusions to “international humanitarian law” when criticizing Israel. That’s the standard: Anyone, at any time, can refer to “international humanitarian law,” but this in no way means that such law genuinely applies.

~~~~~~~~~~

Glick tracks what she sees as the cause of the heighted EU hostility to Israel, much of it economic in nature.

But that hostility transcends economic issues and can be tracked back for some time. It incorporates hypocrisy and a double standard applied to Israel alone.

“Consider,” says Glick, “Europe’s position on Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Europe wrongly asserts that these communities are illegal. But even if they were right, Europe’s behavior toward Israel would still make a mockery of its proclaimed devotion to international law. Europe has no problem, indeed it has actively supported settlements for citizens of belligerent occupying powers in areas ruled through occupation. As Profs. Avi Bell and Eugene Kantorovich from the Kohelet Policy Forum explained in a recent paper on the EU’s guidelines, the EU supports settlements by occupying powers in Northern Cyprus, Abkazia and Western Sahara. In light of this, it is clear that the guidelines directed against Israel are inherently discriminatory.

“The EU’s supposed commitment to international law is similarly exposed as a sham by its willingness to turn a blind eye to the Palestinian Authority’s diversion of EU monies to finance terrorism. Despite mountains of evidence accumulated over the past 13 years that aid is being siphoned off to finance terrorist attacks against Israel, the EU has refused to take action. And its refusal to act is itself a breach of international law.”

It is time, says Glick, to begin confronting the truth on these issues and stop giving a free pass to those “who distort the very meaning of international law while making empty proclamations of support for the cause of peace.”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-one-Israels-European-challenge-329699

This is information — and a perspective — that every supporter of Israel should have access to.

~~~~~~~~~~

Another running theme is that of Iran’s race to become a nuclear power, and the refusal of the nations negotiating with Iran to put a stop to what is imminent.

Perhaps at some time in the near future I’ll be motivated to discuss details once again. But for me now it all seems so wearisome, so “been-there-done-that.” The bottom line is that everything that is being discussed is a half-way measure that won’t stop Iran. As PM Netanyahu continues to point out, nothing short of the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear development capability will work. The Iranian offer to stop enriching at higher levels is meaningless if the equipment that would permit them to do so is still in their possession: In a matter of weeks they could (would, as they wished) be up and running again.

And I hasten to point out here, that when it’s said that the sanctions are working, that is not really so — or is only relatively so. The Iranians are in an economic bind and hope to have sanctions eased, undoubtedly. But please note that they have not stopped their program because of those sanctions. (See Ajami on this below.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Fouad Ajami offers an analysis of the situation — both with regard to Obama’s position on Iran and on Syria — in the Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

“…The remarkable thing about President Obama’s diplomacy in the region is that it has come full circle—to the very beginning of his presidency. The promised ‘opening’ to Iran, the pass given to Bashar Assad’s tyranny in Syria, the abdication of the American gains in Iraq and a reflexive unease with Israel—these were hallmarks of the new president’s approach to foreign policy.

“Now we are simply witnessing the alarming consequences of such a misguided, naïve outlook. [Note from Arlene: do not write to me to tell me that Obama is not naive, please. This is an Ajami quote, and he makes his case.]

“Consider this bit of euphoria from a senior Obama administration official after the Oct. 16-17 negotiations in Geneva with the Iranians over their nuclear program: ‘I’ve been doing this now for about two years, and I have never had such intense, detailed, straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian delegation before.’

“…True, the sanctions have had their own power, but they haven’t stopped Iran from aiding the murderous Assad regime in Syria, or subsidizing Hezbollah in Beirut. And they will not dissuade this regime from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In dictatorial regimes, the pain of sanctions is passed onto the underclass and the vulnerable.

“…The gullibility of Mr. Obama’s pursuit of an opening with Iran has unsettled America’s allies in the region. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates there is a powerful feeling of abandonment. In Israel, there is the bitter realization that America’s strongest ally in region is now made to look like the final holdout against a blissful era of compromise that will calm a turbulent region. A sound U.S. diplomatic course with Iran would never have run so far ahead of Israel’s interests and of the region’s moderate anti-Iranian Arab coalition.”

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579149682674870284

~~~~~~~~~~

The last paragraph I cite above is significant on two counts: The news here is filled with reports of the severe disillusionment of Saudi Arabia — the anger at Obama’s failure to come through.

For example, from Reuters:

“Saudi Arabia’s warning that it will downgrade its relationship with the United States is based on a fear that President Barack Obama lacks both the mettle and the guile to confront mutual adversaries, and is instead handing them a strategic advantage.

“Riyadh is locked in what it sees as a pivotal battle over the fate of the Middle East with its arch-rival Iran, a country it believes is meddling in the affairs of allies and seeking to build a nuclear bomb, charges Tehran denies.

“The kingdom’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has told European diplomats that Riyadh is contemplating a ‘major shift’ away from the United States over Washington’s policies on a host of issues including Syria.”

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-saudi-move-reflects-fears-u-falling-iranian-180118004.html;_ylt=A2KLOzKtpmhSxU8A4j7QtDMD

~~~~~~~~~~

And Ajami is on the mark, indeed, with the fact that here in Israel, where we get it right, we deeply resent being represented as a stumbling block to a peaceful settlement with Iran, a “warmonger,” facing down the US’s “peaceful” approach.

~~~~~~~~~~

There continues to be a very real dispute between the US and Israel with regard to how much time there remains before Iran has nuclear capabilities, i.e., the ability to put together a bomb should its leaders decide to.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former inspector with the IAEA, has released a new assessment estimating that “Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear bomb in as little as a month.”

“The new assessment comes as the White House invited Senate staffers to a briefing on negotiations with Iran as it is trying to persuade Congress not to go ahead with a bill to stiffen sanctions against Iran.” (All emphasis added)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/24/iran-bomb-one-month-away/3181373/

Israeli assessments (roughly, “months away”) are much closer to the Albright estimate than to what Obama is gambling on. Obama is playing with fire of the most dangerous and lethal sort.

~~~~~~~~~~

The heart of the matter is the question of what Netanyahu will finally decide to do, and when — after all his warnings are ignored and the world sails blithely towards a nuclear Iran.

Last week, the New Republic ran a major interview with Amos Yadlin, former head of IDF intelligence and presently head of the Institute of National Security Studies. Yadlin flew one of the planes that attacked the Iraqi reactor. (All emphasis added)

Says Yadlin: “I supported [Netanyahu and Barak] on the notion that if we come to the fork in the road [on Iran], where we have to choose between very tough alternatives—the ‘bomb’ or the ‘bombing’—I’m with the prime minister, for the bombing.”

Many people, he goes on to say, thought that 2012 was the year in which Israel had to attack. He did not. But he suggests that 2014 is. He believes Israel should go as long as possible in giving diplomacy that chance. But then…

“Israel doesn’t need America on D-Day. It can do it alone. It even can cope with the day after, but it does need the United States for the decade after.

“…even the most successful operation theoretically—theoretically—will stop the program for five years. If you want to make these five engineering theoretical years into a decade, until the regime changes, you need the U.S. on board, with the continuation of sanctions, with leading the international campaign against the renewal of the nuclear program in Iran, and maybe supporting [Israel] in doing it again. So that’s why I think 2012 was the wrong year to do it, because in 2012, it was a bright red light from Washington. I would like to emphasize, Israel is not asking for a green light. Israel only doesn’t want to do something that is going 180 degrees against American vital interests as long as it is not a response to a threat that is almost an existential threat. I think in late 2013 or early 2014, especially if America sees that Iran is not serious about reaching an acceptable agreement and only continues to buy time, the U.S. will accept an Israeli attack because a nuclear Iran is absolutely against American vital national security interests…

~~~~~~~~~~

“The coming year is a special challenge because the Iranians are now very close. They may be able to produce a bomb faster than intelligence can detect that they are breaking out or sneaking out. And the breakout time may be shorter than the time necessary for the decisions and planning and execution of an operation that can stop it. This is what is unique here. ‘You cannot live with a nuclear Iran,’ that’s was decided long ago, But in the coming year, the probability of affirmative answers to all four fundamental questions [that must be asked regarding possibility of success] will be higher than it has ever been…

“[To those who say Israel cannot do it] I say that they ignore history. The same people also thought that we couldn’t destroy the Arab air forces in ‘67. They thought we couldn’t make it to Entebbe and free the hostages in 1976. They thought it was impossible to strike the reactor in Iraq. They thought we couldn’t destroy the Syrian air defenses in the Bekaa Valley in 1982. There’s a lot they thought Israel couldn’t do.”

Yadlin is confident that Israel can do it. Period. “It is doable…My confidence level is quite high. We have been building the force and practicing for this day for years.”

He then addressed the issue of probability of success — with that probability dropping as Iran does more to secure its facilities. Right now he thinks the probability is still quite high — 95% — but that indeed it will be dropping.

As to Netanyahu: “The prime minister is not bluffing. It is the main issue he cares about. He thinks that stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is the most important issue for the future of the State of Israel. And he hasn’t changed.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115313/amos-yadlin-iran-strike-why-israel-needs-act-soon