Today's
Haaretz features an article headlined "U.S. drops demand for
Israel building freeze in East Jerusalem." A surprisingly
authoritative-sounding headline, given the leak-free approach of the Mitchell
team thus far.
Savvy consumers of the news - including members of the peace camp who may
be fearful that the Obama Administration, like so many US administrations that
have gone before it, will eventually give in to Israel on these key issues -
would do well to remember that in this kind of high-stakes political poker, a
lot of what we hear in the press is spin (and bluffing). And we would all do
well to wait and see what is actually agreed before passing judgment. If the
agreement is good - however it is framed - then we will praise it. If it
is bad, there will be plenty of opportunity to criticize it at that time.
Blog: August 2009 Archives
(a) have no loopholes -- (for more on loopholes, see our "5 Bogus Reasons for Opposing a Settlement Freeze),
(b) be transparent, especially with respect to any construction that Israel insists on "completing" despite the freeze;
(c) not include anything that could be interpreted as US permission or approval for any settlement construction -- now or in the future -- anywhere, and not include anything that could be interpreted as establishing new "understandings" about where Israel thinks it can build, and
(d) apply not only to construction but also planning.
Perhaps the most important take-away from her analysis is the following: yes, we'd prefer a freeze that includes every single structure and is permanent. But let's remember: a freeze is not an end in itself. The goal here is to get a freeze that is politically significant and sufficiently credible to help launch serious negotiations that, if they succeed, will render the details of the freeze irrelevant, since a final status agreement will resolve the issue, once and for all. A freeze that at a minimum meets the criteria laid out by Hagit, while not the perfect airtight freeze we would love to see -- for Israel's own sake -- would nonetheless be politically significant and sufficiently credible to help launch such negotiations. For this reason, we would gladly support such a freeze.
Americans for Peace Now today mourns the passing of a Senator Edward Kennedy, a long-time advocate of peace for Israel.As far back as 1989, in a letter to APN, Senator Kennedy articulated a position that still rings true today:
Dear Friend,
According to an article in Sunday's Haaretz newspaper, during a closed-door meeting with L.A. Jewish leaders on August 14th Rep. Howard Berman said that the Obama administration is "mistaken" in demanding Israel completely freeze construction in the settlements.
In order to save Israel, Ya'alon said, "we must deal with the issue of the virus that is Peace Now and, if you will, the elites. Their damage is very great. From my point of view, Jews should live in every part of the Land of Israel forever."
Apparently he is unaware that "viral" in the current day-and-age carries less the sense of something evil and hard to get rid of, and more the sense of something that is catching and spreading in popularity at an extremely rapid rate. Like last year's Obama Girl video. Or in this case, like the information that Peace Now's Settlement Watch has been and continues to be extraordinarily effective at getting to the public on Israel's settlement activities.
Last month, members of the largest pro-Israel lobbying organization in the country gathered in Washington, DC. And no, I'm not talking about AIPAC. 4,000 evangelical Christians participated in Christians United for Israel's (CUFI) 4th annual Washington Summit on July 20-22, hearing from speakers such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA), and spending a day lobbying on Capitol Hill.
From Opinion.jpost.com
It is sitting right in front of me. A three-page cable from Boston to Jerusalem sent by consul-general Nadav Tamir expressing concern for Israel's international image following recent clashes with the US administration. I have read secret diplomatic cables for 30 years and I can testify that this is the kind of report professional diplomacy was created for.
Without seeing the current diplomatic correspondence (as I am no longer a government official), I can say that this is one of the most important cables sent by an Israeli diplomat this year - or maybe even this decade.
The leaked cable that Israel's Consul General in Boston, Nadav Tamir, sent to his superiors in Jerusalem last week is still reverberating in Israel and the U.S.In the confidential cable, which was leaked to the Israeli media, Tamir harshly criticized the Israeli government for escalating its disagreements with Washington's regional peace initiative.
I sat down to write how troubling I found the reaction of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman to the leaked cable sent by
I was going to write about the objectionable "kill the messenger" syndrome (see the case of the Israeli government's efforts to silence "Breaking the Silence"), about the danger to Israeli democracy and the damage to the professionalism of Israeli representatives abroad (Tamir is an outstanding professional).
Some of the large Jewish groups were quick to cry "gevalt" at Fatah's General Assembly in Bethlehem even before the conference ended. Granted, there were inflammatory speeches and some disturbing displays of anti-Israeli sentiment.
Last month, the Jerusalem Post reprinted an article by APN's president and CEO,
The article prompted a frothing-at-the-mouth reaction by Martin Sherman, whose tagline is the "academic director of the Jerusalem Summit and lectures in security studies at
Dear Mr Foxman:
In response to your full page ad in the New York Times:
YOU'RE WRONG
You know the problem isn't Arab Rejection - it's borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements. The issue is not Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist - that issue was settled in Madrid, Oslo, diplomatic relations with Egypt & Jordan and the Arab Initiative.
Israel's Peace Now movement and Americans for Peace Now express solidarity with the gay and lesbian community in Israel, following the attack on the gay youth center in Tel Aviv, and strongly reject the intensifying violence and intolerance within Israeli society.Excerpt: "A democratic state that strives for peace and justice simply has no right to uproot families who became refugees in 1948. They left homes in West Jerusalem behind them, and were subsequently granted modest accommodations by the Jordanian government. The claim that the houses in Sheikh Jarrah were purchased by Jews in the early 1900s is a double-edged sword that opens a political and legal Pandora's box."
Abe Foxman is a smart person, a responsible person, an honorable person with a strong moral core. I have known him for years and I respect him.
In the past few weeks as rumors of a possible US-Israeli deal for a partial West Bank settlement freeze have surfaced, opposition to such an agreement has grown in orthodox Religious Zionist and right-wing circles in Israel. This opposition has not only threatened to exacerbate tensions between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews in Israel and in the United States, but also to create the conditions for a civil war in Israel.
by Leonard Fein
In the course of what was likely intended as a critique of the Obama administration's Middle East policies -- specifically, its pressure on Israel regarding West Bank settlements -- Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, last week made an astonishing admission.
As many of his colleagues at the helm of major American Jewish organizations, Foxman has over the years by and large been a conventional apologist for Israel. Now and then, he has staked out a somewhat independent course, but last week brought a full-throated, if inadvertent, reversal.
On freedom of expression: "The Israeli public believes in freedom of expression as a general value, but for the most part refuses to allow harsh criticism to be expressed against the state. 74% support 'Freedom of expression for everyone, regardless of their opinions.' However, 58% agree that "political speech should not be permitted to express harsh criticism of the state of Israel.' This is a significant increase as compared to 48% in 2003."
Blog Monthly Archives
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008