NOVANEWS
Posted By: Sammi Ibrahem
Chair of West Midland PSC
Dear Friends,
The primary interest of item 1 below is the manner in which the information is distributed to the reader in one of Israel’s 3 daily newspapers.. True, the information was in neither of the other 2 papers. Nevertheless, that does not excuse Nir Hasson from slanting the information. The data is correct. But the manner of putting it is not. Note the use of the term ‘clashes.’ And only towards the end of the report do we learn that the police fired tear gas. Yes, some Palestinians very likely threw rocks. But who began the fracas? Why were the police there at all? And finally the last statement about the increase in violence in East Jerusalem totally ignores the reason for the demonstrations: namely that Palestinians are chucked out of their homes to make way for Jewish settlers, and the increase in building for Jews in East Jerusalem.
In addition to item 1, are 5 more.
Item 2 relates that settlement construction has quadrupled since end of the temporary freeze.
Item 3 comments on why US aid to Israel is exempt from cuts—namely AIPAC. I’ve heard that argument before. The fullest discussion of that is by Mearsheimer and Walt who devoted an entire 463 pages (inclusive of notes) to the subject. They also defended their conclusions when they spoke here in Israel. I would not argue that AIPAC has no impact on US foreign policy towards Israel, but nevertheless feel relatively certain that other elements also enter into picture. Time will tell.
Item 4a is a report in the Guardian about the Israeli denial of a visa for the Anglican Bishop, and 4b is a press release on the subject. I include both because though similar, each contains aspects not in the other.
In item 5 Patrick Connors argues that tear gas canisters made in the US shot at revolutionaries in the various Mid East and North African countries help shape attitudes towards the United States.
In the final item Uri Avnery argues that Israel is on the wrong side of history.
All the best,
Dorothy
====================================
1. Haaretz Saturday, March 5, 2011
Latest update 16:56 04.03.11
Three leftists arrested and several injured at East Jerusalem demonstration
Earlier Friday, police forces clashed with Palestinians in East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan, where Jewish baby was injured by a marble thrown by Palestinians into settlers’ home in the village.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/three-leftists-arrested-and-several-injured-at-east-jerusalem-demonstration-1.347204
By Nir Hasson
Tags: Israel news
Police arrested three left-wing protesters after clashes broke out with police during a weekly demonstration in the East Jerusalem of Sheikh Jarrah on Friday. Several protesters were also lightly injured in the clashes.
According to police reports, the confrontation began after demonstrators tried to march towards the homes of Jewish settlers living in the Arab neighborhood.
There were clashes in another East Jerusalem neighborhood earlier on Friday, after a special police patrol unit entered the neighborhood of Silwan.
Arab residents of the neighborhood were leaving Friday prayers when the police force entered, increasing tensions and leading to clashes between police and the Silwan residents.
“There was no need for police intervention. It was really strange.” said Arik Ascherman, the head of Rabbis for Human rights, who was in Silwan at the time of the clashes.
During the ensuing clashes, police fired tear gas as Palestinians threw rocks.
A Jewish baby was mildly injured in the fray by a marble thrown by Palestinians into a settler’s home in Silwan. The baby was treated at home and the Palestinian rabble-rousers were dispersed by police.
According to police reports this week, 2011 has seen a significant escalation in the number of violent confrontations in East Jerusalem.
===================================
2. Haaretz Saturday, March 5, 2011
Latest update 19:43 05.03.11
‘Construction in West Bank settlements quadrupled since end of temporary freeze’
According to data by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, settlers began building over 114 houses during the 10-month settlement freeze, and began construction of over 427 houses since October 2010.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/construction-in-west-bank-settlements-quadrupled-since-end-of-temporary-freeze-1.347303
By Chaim Levinson
Tags: Israel news West Bank Israel settlements
Since the end of the settlement moratorium five months ago, the construction rate in West Bank neighborhoods has quadrupled, data from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics revealed Saturday.
According to the data, over 114 housing units that settlers started building during the 10-month settlement freeze have been completed, as well as over 1,175 housing units which were started before the temporary moratorium.
The data also reveals that construction of over 427 housing units has begun since October 2010.
The Central Bureau of Statistics noted, however, that the data is based on partial information, and that there has also been a dramatic rise in illegal construction in West Bank outposts that has not been officially documented.
The data does not include caravans and tents that are often placed in illegal outposts to settle the land.
Direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been on hold since Israel’s 10-month freeze on new settlements expired at the end of September 2010.
======================
3. Al Jazeera Last Modified: 05 Mar 2011 13:05 GMT
Why is Israel aid exempt?
As US fiscal conservatives cut food programmes for poor children, military aid for Israel is left untouched.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201135115850632729.html#
MJ Rosenberg
US military aid should be conditional on Israel stopping settlement expansion, writer says [GALLO/GETTY]
Once upon a time, social security was considered the “third rail” of American politics. The “third rail” is the train track that carries the high-voltage power; touching it means instant death.
The “third rail” metaphor has for decades been applied to social security, a government program so popular with the American public that proposing any changes in it would mean political death to the politician.
No more. Although social security is as popular as ever, politicians routinely propose changes in the program — including privatisation and means testing. While the proposals usually go nowhere, and rightly so, the politicians who support them live to fight another day. Today, with those massive deficits and the astronomical national debt, not even social security is sacrosanct.
Few, if any, government programs are.
But US aid to Israel is. In fact, the $3bn Israel aid package is the new third rail of American politics: touch it and die. It is also the one program that liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers all agree should not sustain even a dollar in cuts.
Actually, that is something of a mis-statement. These various parties and factions do not agree that the $3bn Israel aid package is sacred. They just say that they do because a powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), makes clear to them that touching the aid package will mean big trouble for them in the next election.
Cuts to social programmes
It no longer comes as much of a surprise that the average Democrat or Republican will rule that Israel aid cuts are off the table — while supporting cuts in programs like head start, which educates poor children, or WIC, which provides nutrition assistance to disadvantaged women and their infants.
It is not a surprise because everyone knows that the Democratic and Republican campaign finance committees warn their members of the dire consequences that might ensue if they dare to stand up to the lobby.
That is why even the most liberal members of congress never point out the absurdity of supporting full funding of military aid to Israel while slashing vital domestic programs. In fact, the only members of congress who have suggested that Israel share some of the sacrifice are Reresentative Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) who would pretty much cut every program in the budget, including Israel aid.
But the two Pauls, all by themselves, put enough of a scare into AIPAC that it immediately got to work to make sure that other like-minded Republicans (the “cut everything” caucus) did not go off and follow them in the name of, say, logic and consistency.
Fiscal conservatives?
AIPAC was most concerned about the Republican first-termers, most of whom were elected with the support of tea partiers, who are generally extreme fiscal conservatives and tend not to favor any exemptions from the budget axe.
Almost immediately, AIPAC produced a letter for the Republican first-termers to sign in which they pledged that, no matter what else they cut, Israel would be exempt. And almost immediately, 65 of the 87 Republican freshmen signed on, with more signing on later.
Among the signatories are some of the most vehement supporters of cutting virtually every domestic program. These are people who support programs that cut jobs in their own districts and proudly point to their devotion to the principle that shared sacrifice means everyone.
But not Israel.
The AIPAC letter seems to recognise that virtually every other program is sustaining cuts. It refers to “runaway spending and trillion dollar deficits.” It even concedes that “tough choices must be made to control federal spending” and that “we must do a better job of prioritising appropriations”. Those priorities can be seen in this list of draconian budget cuts the freshmen support.
But then this: “Therefore, as this congress considers the upcoming continuing resolution, we strongly urge you [the House leadership] to include America’s full $3bn commitment for Fiscal Year 2011 under the 10-year US-Israel Memorandum of Understanding.
And that is where fiscal hawks become the most docile of doves: when it comes to Israel.
Conditional aid
This is not to say that the United States should eliminate military aid to Israel. Much of the aid package can be justified on the grounds that Israel is an ally, one that still has enemies bent on its destruction.
But how can anyone justify picking this one program out of the entire federal budget and saying, without discussion, that it merits full funding, without scrutiny, while virtually every other program is cut?
The simple fact is that both the United States and Israel would be better off if we attached strings to our aid, as we do with other foreign assistance programmes.
For instance, we might say that for every dollar Israel spends on expanding settlements, we will subtract one dollar from the aid package. Or we can put some of the package on hold until Israel agrees to freeze settlements, thereby enabling negotiations with the Palestinians to resume.
Or we can simply examine the aid budget, item by item, to make sure that each program in it supports US policy goals. Do those US -provided cluster bombs that are still exploding in Lebanon serve our interests?
But we do none of that. Israel prepares a shopping list and congressional appropriators provide the goods. Shop ’til you drop.
This is wrong. Congress should treat the Israel aid package the same way it deals with programs that directly benefit Americans. Those who support it should be forced to defend it, line by line.
But the sad fact is that special interests like AIPAC, the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth intimidate Congress into exempting their favorite projects even from discussion. Aid to Israel will not even be discussed this year, except for members of Congress informing AIPAC of their unquestioning devotion to it.
If only infants, working Americans, and the poor were somebody’s special interest. Maybe then, someday, they too could intimidate congress. As the old Jewish expression goes: we should all live so long.
MJ Rosenberg is a senior foreign policy fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.
Follow MJ’s work on Facebook or on Twitter.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera
==============================
4a, The Guardian Friday 4 March 2011 16.38 GMT
Anglican bishop of Jerusalem sues Israel over visa refusal
Suheil Dawani appeals against deportation order tied to claims he made illegal land transactions with Palestinians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/anglican-bishop-jerusalem-sues-israel
Stephen Bates
Anglicans pray inside the church at Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel – part of the diocese of the Right Rev Suheil Dawani, who has been denied renewal of his residency visa for Jerusalem where the diocese covering Israel, Lebanon and Jordan. Photograph: Jim Hollander/EPA
The Anglican bishop of Jerusalem has launched legal action against the Israeli government after it refused him and his family a residency visa for the city.
The Right Reverend Suheil Dawani, who is Palestinian by birth and US educated, has been denied the visa for more than six months after anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations against him of illegal land transactions and forgery. There are suggestions the accusations may have spilled over from an internal Anglican dispute within the diocese.
A letter in Hebrew from the Israeli interior ministry accused the bishop of “acting with the Palestinian authority in transferring lands owned by the Jewish people to the Palestinians and also [helping] to register lands of the Jewish people in the name of the church”.
Dawani has denied the allegations and demanded details including the names of his accusers – so far unsuccessfully. He has been told he and his wife and daughter must leave the country immediately, though the order has not been enforced.
William Hague, the British foreign secretary, and the US state department have raised the matter with the Israeli government. Dawani has been supported by Israel’s chief rabbi, Shlomo Amar. Dr Rowan Williams, who as archbishop of Canterbury leads the worldwide Anglican communion, and Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, the US Episcopal church’s presiding bishop, have complained to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.
The refusal is not unprecedented – a visa was denied to the current Greek Orthodox patriarch in Israel for more than two years until 2009 – but no Anglican bishop has been denied residency before. Dawani’s visa was granted after his appointment in 2008 and was renewed in 2009 before being refused last August.
Although the bishop lives in the residency next to the city’s Victorian St George’s cathedral, his diocese includes Israel, Lebanon and Jordan, so his ability to travel to parishes is restricted, as is his status to conduct church affairs.
The diocese is one of the smallest in the Anglican communion with 7,000 worshippers across the region. Dawani is the 14th bishop since the first was appointed in 1976. There is a dispute between Dawani and his predecessor, Riah Abu el-Assal, over the diocese’s ownership of a church school in the former bishop’s hometown of Nazareth. El-Assal publicly backed another candidate as his successor when he retired in 2007.
A senior church source outside Israel said: “No one can figure out what the Israelis are playing at. This is not the kind of message they should be sending out. They really don’t need to be doing this. Dawani is a very decent, good man and no one has produced any evidence against him. As far as we can tell there is no substance to any accusations.”
The bishop’s office said: “This situation has continued for over six months as Bishop Dawani attempted to resolve this with restraint and without causing the government of Israel embarrassment. The lack of resolution, despite all the efforts, required [him] to seek legal counsel … upon the recommendation … he has chosen to take the case to court, seeking redress through the Israeli legal system.”
In London an Israeli embassy spokesman said: “Israel is not interested in any unnecessary delays but the allegations are still under official review. We understand it is causing damage as long as it remains unresolved.”
It took the authorities two years to deal with the Greek Orthodox residency wrangle.
Dawani could not be contacted for comment.
=====
4b. PRESS RELEASE [forwarded by Anne]
The information contained herein (2 pages) has been authorized for release by:
The Rt. Revd Suheil S. Dawani
Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem
Contact Information:
Phone +972-2-627-1670
FAX +972-2-627-3847
bishop@j-diocese.org
3 March 2011 Jerusalem The Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem and Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem, the Rt. Revd Suheil Dawani has been denied the renewal of his “Temporary Residency Status” in Jerusalem. This action was taken when the A-5 permits held by himself, his wife and youngest daughter were revoked by the government of Israel, effective 24 September 2010.
Bishop Dawani was elected in 2007 as Bishop of the Diocese and was recognized by the State of Israel as the head of the Episcopal Diocese in accordance with the decision by the State of Israel in 1970 which acknowledged the Diocese as one of the thirteen recognized churches in Israel. All Anglican Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem who have not held Israeli citizenship have been granted residency permits (A5) to allow them to live in Jerusalem where the Bishop’s residence, diocesan offices and cathedral are located.
Bishop Dawani, his wife and daughters had successfully renewed this permit, as required, in 2008 and 2009. On 24 August 2010, Bishop Dawani went to renew the permit with the Ministry of the Interior and was informed in writing that permits for himself, his wife and daughter would not be renewed because of allegations pending against the Bishop.
The letter, in Hebrew, included the following: “Bishop Suheil acted with the Palestinian Authority in transferring lands owned by Jewish people to the Palestinians and also helped to register lands of Jewish people in the name of the Church.” There were further allegations that documents were forged by the Bishop. The letter also stated that Bishop Dawani and his family should leave the country immediately.
Bishop Dawani replied to the Israeli Minister of the Interior denying all accusations and requested the restoration of the residency permits for himself and his family to provide for his ongoing leadership of his Diocese and residence for himself and his family. Bishop Dawani did not receive any response from the office of the Minister of the Interior.
Bishop Dawani delivered another letter to the Minister of the Interior challenging the allegations and requesting any documents or evidence against him. Israeli authorities have yet to produce any proof of the allegations made against Bishop Dawani.
Bishop Dawani has sought to resolve this issue quietly without resort to any publicity since August of 2010. During this period of time Bishop Dawani sought confidential support through religious and diplomatic channels. The Archbishop of Canterbury, as the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion and church representative of the Queen of England, has been in contact with the office of the Prime Minister of Israel and Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amer to resolve this issue. In addition, Bishop Dawani met personally with the Chief Rabbi, who is a good friend of both Bishop Dawani and the Anglican Church, who took immediate action to try to restore the Bishop’s residency rights.
The Archbishop of Canterbury received assurances that the situation would be resolved promptly. Other Anglican leaders, including the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC and the Primates of the Anglican Communion representing Anglicans throughout the world, have all used their influence individually and collectively with Israeli authorities without success to date.
Diplomatic efforts through the office of the British Foreign Secretary, the British Ambassador to Israel, the British Consul-General in Jerusalem, the State Department of the United States and the American Consul-General in Jerusalem have provided support for Bishop Dawani and ongoing contact with Israeli authorities but without tangible results in terms of discovering the source of the allegations against Bishop Dawani or the restoration of the residency rights which are crucial to his providing leadership of his Diocese and residency in Jerusalem for himself and his family.
This situation has continued for over six months as Bishop Dawani attempted to resolve this with restraint and without causing the government of Israel any embarrassment. The lack of resolution, despite all the efforts outlined above, required Bishop Dawani to seek legal counsel. Bishop Dawani’s legal advisor sent a letter to the Attorney General of Israel seeking an explanation of the allegations against him which have been the basis for the denial of the residency rights for himself and his family. After waiting one month without an explanation of the allegations from the Attorney General and upon the recommendation of legal counsel, Bishop Dawani has chosen to take his case to court seeking redress through the Israeli legal system. Bishop Dawani now awaits a court date to be assigned.
END
==========================
5. LA Times Thursday, March 3, 2011 | 3:43 pm
Comments (14) (180)(35)
Patrick Connors, a member of Adalah-NY: The New York campaign for the Boycott of Israel, a New York City-based group advocating for Palestinian rights, takes on a Feb. 22 Los Angeles Times article.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/03/blowback-weapons-of-mideast-oppression-made-in-usa.html
The Times’ Feb. 22 article, “Britain, Italy condemned for Libya ties,” provides helpful insight into the uproar caused by British and Italian military aid to Libya. However, readers would be well served by further information on how, with our government’s support, U.S. companies have provided military and crowd-control equipment that has propped up authoritarian governments throughout the Middle East.
Rather than seeing the U.S. as spreading freedom, Arabs who have taken to the streets have experienced “Made in U.S.A.” tear gas used by repressive governments to kill and maim unarmed protesters and crush popular movements for justice.
For unarmed Arab protesters in Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia and the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Pennsylvania may seem to be the tear-gas capital of the world judging by the labels on the canisters fired at them. Combined Systems Inc. (CSI) is headquartered in Jamestown, Pa., and NonLethal Technologies Inc.’s home is in Homer City, Pa. The apparently defunct Federal Laboratories was based in Saltsburg, Pa.
The recent wave of deaths and injuries from tear gas began in the West Bank. Jawaher Abu Rahmah died on Jan. 1 after she was overcome by tear gas the day before at a protest against Israel’s construction of its illegal wall and settlements on the farmland of the village of Bil’in. CSI tear-gas canisters littered the village. Jawaher’s brother, Bassem Abu Rahmah, was killed in 2009 in Bil’in when he was shot directly in the chest during a peaceful protest by an Israeli soldier with an extended-range CSI tear-gas canister.
Also in 2009 in the neighboring village of Ni’ilin, American citizen Tristan Anderson was left partially disabled after he was shot in the head by an extended-range tear-gas canister from CSI. In May 2010, New York art student Emily Henochowicz lost her left eye when she was shot in the face by an Israeli soldier with an aluminum tube tear-gas canister, very likely made in the U.S.
In Tunisia, Lucas Mebrouk Dolega, a 32-year-old photographer from France, died on Jan. 17 after being hit by a tear-gas grenade fired at close range by Tunisian police. On Feb. 6, a Tunisian protester was killed when he was shot in the head with a tear-gas canister. Photos and news reports have shown that CSI is a major tear-gas provider for Tunisia.
In Egypt, Agence France Press reported on Jan. 28 that “Dozens of the canisters made by [CSI subsidiary] Combined Tactical Systems in Jamestown, Pennsylvania, were fired at crowds on one Cairo street on Friday … with the security forces sometimes firing them straight at demonstrators.” Human Rights Watch staff reported seeing dead protesters in Alexandria with “massive head wounds from tear-gas canisters we were told had been fired directly at their heads at close range.”
In Bahrain, according to news reports and photos posted online, peaceful protesters have been shot at with tear gas from NonLethal Technologies and Federal Laboratories. In Yemen, CSI tear gas has reportedly been used on protesters.
The U.S. gives billions in military aid annually to these countries — $3 billion to Israel, $1.3 billion to Egypt, $155 million to Yemen, $20 million to Bahrain and about $15 million to Tunisia. The U.S. State Department at a minimum approves the export and sale of tear gas by U.S. companies to these governments.
The American-made tear gas is a symbol of U.S. policy in the Middle East that has supported repression and cheap oil at the expense of human rights, and has favored Israel and Arab autocrats who tempered criticism of Israel’s many abuses of Palestinian rights.
Americans should follow the example of people in Britain and France and demand that the State Department stop approving the sale of tear gas and other weapons that are being used by repressive governments in the Middle East, including Israel, to deny basic freedoms and rights.
We also need to demand that U.S. companies such as CSI and NonLethal Technologies ensure that their products are not being sold to governments that will use them to violate basic human rights. Death, injury and the denial of freedom and basic human rights in the Middle East should no longer be made in the U.S.A.
–Patrick Connors
=====================
6. Uri Avnery
March 5, 2011
Wrong Side
OF ALL the memorable phrases uttered by Barack Obama in the
last two years, the one that stuck in my mind more than any
other appeared in his historic speech in Cairo in the early
days of his term. He warned the nations not to place
themselves “on the wrong side of history.”
It seems that the Arab nations took heed of this advice
more than he might have anticipated. In the last few weeks
they jumped from the wrong to the right side of history.
And what a jump it was!
Our government, however, is moving in the opposite
direction. It is determined, so it seems, to get as far
away from the right side as possible.
We are in a cul-de-sac. And it lies in the nature of culs-
de-sac that the deeper in you get, the further you have to
go back when the time comes.
THIS WEEK, a fascinating telephone conversation took place.
On the one end was Binyamin Netanyahu, on the other the
German Chancellor.
In time gone by, the world’s leaders did not generally talk
to each other directly. Bismarck did not pick up the phone
to talk with Napoleon III. He sent seasoned diplomats, who
knew how to smooth the edges and deliver an ultimatum in a
soft voice.
Netanyahu called to rebuke Angela Merkel for Germany’s vote
in favor of the Security Council resolution condemning the
settlements – the resolution blocked by the scandalous US
veto. I don’t know if our Prime Minister mentioned the
Holocaust, but he certainly expressed his annoyance about
Germany daring to vote against the “Jewish State”.
He was shocked by the answer. Instead of a contrite Frau
Merkel apologizing abjectly, his ear was filled by a
schoolmistress scolding him in no uncertain terms. She told
him that he had broken all his promises, that no one of the
world’s leaders believes a single word of his any more. She
demanded that he make peace with the Palestinians.
If a person like Netanyahu could be rendered “speechless”,
it would have happened at that moment. Fortunately for
Netanyahu, it just cannot happen to him.
THIS CONVERSATION is a symptom of an ongoing process – the
slow but steady deterioration in Israel’s international
standing.
In Israel, this is called “delegitimatsia”. It is conceived
as a sinister world-wide conspiracy, rather on the lines of
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Clearly, it has no
connection with anything we do – since all our deeds are
pure as gold. The obvious conclusion: the enemies of Israel
all over the world – including their fifth column in Israel
itself – are plotting the destruction of Israel by all
kinds of boycotts.
Our leaders know how to obstruct this plot – by enacting
laws. Anyone who supplies the enemies of Israel with lists
of enterprises located in the settlements will be punished.
Anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel or of the
settlements – in the eyes of the lawmakers, they are one
and the same – will have to pay astronomical fines and
indemnities, millions of dollars. And if all this doesn’t
help, the enemies of the regime will be sent to prison, as
has happened already to the serial peace demonstrator
Jonathan Pollak.
But it appears that our leaders do not rely on these
measures alone. Therefore, our deputy Foreign Minister,
Danny Ayalon (remember? the genius who sought to humiliate
the Turkish ambassador by sitting him on a low stool?)
decided to reach for even more radical remedies: all
Israeli ambassadors will now be sent to the Machpela Cave
in Hebron for a historic meeting with our forefather
Abraham, who, according to Jewish belief, is buried there
(archeologists think that it is a Muslim Sheikh who lies
there in troubled rest.)
Seriously, our leaders now look like the boy in the legend
who thrust his finger in the dyke to stop the water, though
in our case the whole of the dyke is crumbling.
YES, ISRAEL’S standing in the world is indeed sinking
continuously, but not because of a world-wide plot uniting
“anti-Semites” and “Self-hating Jews”.
We are sinking, because we are on the wrong side of
history.
Israel has maintained for decades a regime of occupation.
It continues to control and humiliate another people.
Ideologically and practically, it lives in the mental world
of the 19th century, while the rest of the world is
starting to live in the 21st. Israeli policy is simply
anachronistic.
The 21st century will see the sight of nations coming
together. It will see the beginning of a world order, and I
have no doubt that this idea will be realized.
This is not a vision of starry-eyed idealists. It is an
essential necessity for the human race and all its peoples
and nations. The world is faced with problems that no
single state or group of states can solve by itself. Global
warming, which is threatening the very existence of the
human species, is by its very nature a world problem. The
recent economic crisis has shown that the collapse of one
country’s economy can spread like wildfire to the entire
world. The Internet has established a world-wide community,
in which ideas spread easily from country to country, as we
can see now in the Arab world.
International institutions, which once aroused only
derision, are slowly acquiring real jurisdiction. The
International Court has grown teeth. International law,
which in the past was mainly an abstract idea, is slowly
evolving into a real world law. Important and strong
countries like Germany and France are voluntarily giving up
large chunks of their sovereignty in favor of the European
Union. Regional and world-wide cooperation between nations
is becoming a political necessity.
Concepts like democracy, liberty, justice and human rights
are not only moral values – in today’s world they have
become essential needs, a basis for a new world order.
All these processes are advancing at a maddeningly slow,
almost geological pace. But the direction is unmistakable
and cannot be reversed. Whatever Barack Obama’s deeds – or
lack of them – his intuition about the direction can be
trusted.
That is the “right side of history”. But our country is
closing its eyes to this. True, it excels in the most
international of industries, high tech, and is working
successfully to extend its economic ties to the far corners
of the world. But it scorns international public opinion,
the United Nations and international law. It sticks to a
form of nationalism that was “modern” at the time of the
French revolution, when the “nation-state” was the highest
ideal. Of course, nationalism has not died, and it occupies
even now an important place in the consciousness of the
peoples. But this is a completely new form of nationalism,
the nationalism of the 21st century, which does not stand
in contradiction to internationalism but, on the contrary,
constitutes a brick in the edifice of the international
structure.
THE ARAB nations have suddenly awoken from a centuries-long
slumber, and are now fighting to catch up with the other
nations. The anachronistic tyrannies that kept them down,
wasted their capabilities and imposed on them patterns of
bygone ages, are no more.
It is difficult to know where these uprisings, which are
engulfing the region from Morocco to Oman and from Syria to
Yemen, will go. It is hard to prophesy, especially the
future.
2011 may be for the Arab world what 1848 was for Europe.
Then, when the French people stood up, the waves of
revolution spread over much of the face of the continent.
It seems that I am not the only one who is now reminded of
this example. Much can be learned from it, and not all of
it positive. In France, the uprising swept away a corrupt
regime, but paved the way for the rise of Napoleon III, the
first of Europe’s modern dictators. In Germany, then
fragmented into dozens of kingdoms and principalities, the
rulers were frightened and so promised democratic reforms.
But while the debates of the lawyers and politicians in
Frankfurt about the future constitution went on and on, the
kings gathered their armies, crushed the democrats and
started another era of oppression. (The failure of the
Frankfurt assembly found its expression in the immortal
German verse: “Dreimal hundert Professoren / Vaterland, du
bist verloren!” – three times a hundred professors /
Motherland you are lost.)
The revolutions of 1848 left behind a legacy of
disappointment and despair. But they were not in vain. The
noble ideas born in those heady months did not die, future
generations strove to realize them in all the countries of
the continent. The current flag of Germany was born in
those days.
The Arab revolutions, too, may end in failure and
disappointment. They may give birth to new dictatorships.
Here and there anachronistic religious regimes may spring
up. Each Arab country is different from the others, and in
each the developments will be subject to local conditions.
But what happened yesterday in Tunisia and Egypt, what is
happening today in Libya and Yemen, what happens tomorrow
in Saudi Arabia and Syria will shape the face of the Arab
nations for a long time to come. They will play an entirely
new role on the world stage.
ISRAEL IS dominated by the settlers, who resemble in spirit
the Crusaders of the 12th century. Fundamentalist religious
parties, not much different from their Iranian
counterparts, play a major role in our state. The political
and economic elite is steeped in corruption. Our democracy,
in which we took so much pride, is in mortal danger.
Some people argue that all this is happening because
“Netanyahu has no policy”. Nonsense. He has a clear policy:
to maintain Israel as a garrison state, to enlarge the
settlements, to prevent the foundation of a real
Palestinian state, and to go on without peace, in a state
of eternal conflict.
Just now it was been leaked that Netanyahu is going to give
a historic speech – another one – very soon. Not in the
Knesset, whose importance is approaching nil, but in the
really important forum: AIPAC, the Jewish lobby in
Washington.
There he will unfold his Peace Plan, whose details have
also been leaked. A wonderful plan, with only one minor
defect: it has nothing to do with peace.
It proposes setting up a Palestinian state with
“provisional borders”. (With us, nothing is more permanent
than the “provisional”). It will consist of about half the
West Bank. (The other half, including East Jerusalem, will
presumably be covered with settlements.) There will be a
timetable for the discussion of the core issues – borders,
Jerusalem, refugees etc. (In Oslo, a timetable of five
years was fixed. It expired in 1999, by which time
negotiation had not even started.) Negotiations will not
start at all until the Palestinians recognize Israel as the
State of the Jewish People and accept its “security
requirements”. (Meaning: never.)
If the Palestinians accept such a plan, they need (in the
words of the US Secretary of Defense in another context)
“to have their heads examined”. But of course Netanyahu is
not addressing the Palestinians at all. His plan is a
primitive attempt at marketing. (After all, in the past he
was a marketing agent for furniture). The aim is to stop
the international campaign of “delegitimatsia”.
Ehud Barak, too, had something to say this week. In a long
TV interview, almost entirely consisting of political
gibberish, he made one important remark: the Arab uprisings
provide Israel with new opportunities. What opportunities?
You guessed it: to get increased quantities of American
arms. Arms and America ?ber alles.
And indeed, the one factor that makes this policy still
possible is the unequalled relationship between Israel and
the US. But the Arab Awakening will, in the medium and long
term, change the Israeli-Arab balance of power –
psychologically, politically, economically, and in the end
also militarily. At the same time, the world balance of
power is also changing. New powers are rising, old powers
are gradually losing their clout. This will not be a one-
time, dramatic occurrence, but a slow and steady process.
That is how history is moving. Anyone who places himself on
the wrong side of it will pay the price.