If youre not catching flak, then youre not over the target. And one good way to know that we are scoring points is when our enemies start screaming bloody murder.
So back in 2002, when Israel started building its security barrier, the PLO and its fellow travelers had fits. They had lots of excuses it was inconvenient for them, it was built on their land, it was an apartheid wall, it was ugly, and on and on; but the real reason was simple: by making it easier for us to stop terrorists on their way to our buses and restaurants, we took away their best weapon. I know: my son was in the police counter-terrorism unit at the time, and they were going 24/7 to intercept and stop the bombers who were trying to murder us on almost a daily basis. The barrier made their job much easier.
This applies in many areas, not just physical barriers and military tactics. For example, how the Israeli Left squealed in pain when the Knesset passed a law that demanded transparency for foreign-funded NGOs! Even though the law was a pale version of what had been originally proposed, the idea that our country would dare to protect its sovereignty against foreign subversion, subversion that was a meal ticket for hundreds of operatives that spent their days provoking security forces and filming the interactions, informing to the PA about Arabs who considered selling land to Jews, filing lawsuits against the government and the IDF, petitioning the Supreme Court to dismantle Jewish communities the very idea made them furious. It was undemocratic to let people know that anti-Israel governments in Europe were paying them!
Or what about the recent anti-BDS law? Among others, its the progressive Jewish community in America whose ox is being gored this time: the ones like Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Union for Reform Judaism, who love Israel so much that they want her to be better, which they are trying to achieve by boycotting products from settlements in order to force her to create another Hamastan next to Route 6, so terrorists can hit the airport and Kfar Saba with mortar shells. How undemocratic it is to say that non-residents of our country who are (either deliberately or because they are useful idiots) working to help destroy it may not sit on the beach in Tel Aviv!
But one of the best examples of the hypocrisy of the Arabs and their friends is their spluttering reaction to this recent remark posted by Avigdor Lieberman on his Facebook page (Hebrew, my tr.)
At the threshold of a new attempt to start up diplomatic negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, we must learn the lessons of the past, and the first lesson is: every attempt to solve the Palestinian issue on a land-for-peace basis is bound to fail.
The only way to a sustainable agreement is through the exchange of territory and population as part of a larger regional peace deal.
It is unthinkable that a homogeneous Palestinian state will be established without a single Jew 100% Palestinian, and that despite this, Israel will be a bi-national state, with 22% Palestinians.
There is no reason for Sheikh Raed Salah, Ayman Oudeh, Basel Ghattas or Haneen Zoabi to continue to be Israeli citizens.
Lieberman has expressed similar ideas before. Its essential to understand that he is not advocating that Arabs be expelled from their homes in Israel. His plan is that borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state should be drawn so that large Arab populations that today are in Israel such as in the triangle area near Umm al Fahm would fall in Palestine, and Israelis today living across the Green Line will be in Israel. Such a trade would not require anyone to move, and would allow Arabs to live under Palestinian sovereignty and Jews under Israeli rule.
Leaving aside the legal complexities, one would think this would appeal to the Arabs. Dont they want self-determination? Unsurprisingly they hate it, calling it racist and fascist.
there is no doubt that Lieberman, an immigrant from Moldova, doesnt understand the meaning of a homeland or its native people.
Under any possible future settlement there will be neither room for any land-grabbing settlers in a Palestinian state nor any room for racists the likes of Ivet [Liebermans Russian name]. The Palestinians living today in Israel are the masters of the land, and Lieberman is just a passing guest.
According to Ghattas, Lieberman doesnt understand that the land belongs exclusively to Arabs, that the descendants of Arabs who settled here in the 19th and 20th centuries are natives, while the Jews living in places mentioned in the Bible are land-grabbing settlers.
Haaretz, in an editorial, wrote,
The defense minister believes that hundreds of thousands of Israeli Arab citizens dont really belong to the state and should be transferred from sovereign Israeli territory to another country because of their ethnic affiliation. Practically speaking, under the guise of seeking a sustainable arrangement, Lieberman wants to convey to the states Arab citizens that they arent wanted by the State of Israel and that their citizenship is temporary and conditional.
Lieberman knows that the right of those born here to maintain Israeli citizenship is no less than that of a Jew who is naturalized by way of the Law of Return. Its not only that the idea of creating an Israel cleansed of Arabs is warped, but that even raising it as an option is unacceptable.
The word transfer, which usually refers to forced resettlement, is inflammatory, but that is how the editors of Haaretz like it. Nevertheless, their argument is faulty. Haaretz and the Arabs both want a chunk of sovereign Israel to be torn off and given to the PLO. So if boundaries need to be drawn, is it not more reasonable to do it on the basis of the ethnicity of the population? Wouldnt it be better for everyone if Palestinians were ruled by Palestinians and Jews by Jews? Why are the 1949 armistice lines a better choice? Why is physical expulsion of Jews from their homes acceptable, but drawing the border to include Arabs in the Arab state not?
Haaretz thinks that Liebermans proposal is just a stunt to make the Arab citizens of Israel feel unwanted. I dont support Liebermans idea myself, for various reasons, including that it really does insult Arab citizens of Israel, many of whom with notable exceptions, as Lieberman made clear are loyal and productive citizens of the state. But whether or not you think it should be implemented, it makes a very important point: it emphasizes the blatantly racist nature of the PLO demand for a Palestinian state without any Jews in it. Whats sauce for the goose, in other words, should also be sauce for the gander.
And lets face it: why do the Arabs prefer to live under Jewish sovereignty? Of course the answer is that they know very well that despite the alleged discrimination and racism of Israel, they are and will continue to be far better off in almost every way as Israelis than under the kleptocratic, corrupt, unjust and violent regime of a PLO or a Hamas.
Iran is responsible for more than 80% of Israels security problems, said PM Benjamin Netanyahu, at a ceremony marking 25 years since the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in which 29 died. Two years later, he noted, Iran was behind the bombing of the Jewish Community Center (AMIA) building in the same city in which 85 people perished.
Iran supports Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and of course operates Hezbollah, with whom Israel has fought one vicious war and which has turned most of South Lebanon into a base for attacking Israel with an estimated 130,000 rockets and missiles. On an almost daily basis, the Iranian regime threatens Israel with destruction, calling our country a cancerous tumor.
Irans program is to control the entire region. It is a certainty that its nuclear weapons program will bear fruit in the next few years. The regime is expanding its sphere of influence eastward to the sea, through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The political arm of its Hezbollah militia, now more an army than a militia, has solidified its control of Lebanon and along with it, the US-supplied Lebanese army. Iran is establishing choke points at critical spots in the Gulf through which much of the worlds oil flows, and (through its sponsorship of rebels in Yemen) the Red Sea. The conservative regimes of the Gulf are trembling with fear, to the point that they have moderated their criticism of Israel and may even cooperate with us to some extent.
Unfortunately, the US has left the building, as far as the Middle East is concerned. Its been a tragic process. The Bush administration atomized Iraq (instead of simply dealing with Saddam) and destroyed the Sunni/Shia balance of power, allowing Iran to expand into the prostrate corpse of Iraq. Obama went further, actually tilting toward Iran and against its traditional allies, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. US military budgets have been cut and land and naval forces withdrawn from the region, while Iran is flush with funds as sanctions have been removed and massive ransoms paid.
It is difficult to guess what Trump will do, but from his statements it seems that the last thing he wants is more American involvement in the Middle East. Trump is facing more militant opposition than any US president in my lifetime, and I believe that domestic unrest will get much worse before it gets better. There is even a significant possibility that he will not succeed in serving out his term. The European countries, although they are coming into nuclear missile range of Tehran, are themselves militarily weak and behaving obsequiously in order to sell weapons and aircraft to the newly-unsanctioned Iran.
The Soviets always wanted control of the Middle East since the days of Nasser, but were faced down by the US. Today, Russia has taken advantage of the American and European power vacuum and become the strongest power in the region. Russias that is, Vladimir Putins goals are not entirely clear, but he is allied with the Assad regime in Syria, in whose favor he has turned the tide of the civil war. Russia has developed a port in Tartus and airbase facilities in Khmeimim, near Latakia. It has deployed the latest wide-ranging, stealth-defeating S-400 antiaircraft systems in Syria, as well as Crimea. These facilities give it a strong military foothold in the region.
Israel is in a difficult spot. We seem to have non-hostile relations with Russia, which has not prevented us from bombing convoys and supply depots in Syria to stop the delivery of game-changing Iranian weapons to Hezbollah. But despite this, Hezbollahs buildup continues. Estimates are that Hezbollah could fire thousands of missiles a day at Israel, and our defensive systems couldnt stop all or even most of them.
I asked Jonathan Spyer, one of the most well-informed experts on Hezbollah, whether he thought war with Hezbollah was inevitable. His answer was that it is unlikely while Hezbollah is enmeshed in the Syrian war, but will become much more likely when the war ends. The intervention of Russia has given the Assad regime a new lease on life, and although it is almost certain that the regime will not control all of the territory that it had before the war, it will likely defeat the Sunni rebels and Islamic State forces that it is fighting, reducing the pressure on Hezbollah. That is when we will need to start worrying here in Israel.
Despite the fact that Hezbollah is the greatest direct threat to our security today, Netanyahu correctly noted that it is the Iranian regime that stands behind it, finances it and tightly controls it. This presents a problem for our strategy of deterrence. Although we can (and do) credibly threaten that if attacked we will turn southern Lebanon where the rocket launchers are into a lunar-landscaped parking lot, and indeed destroy the infrastructure of the state of Lebanon so thoroughly that it will take decades to recover, the Lebanese arent calling the shots the Iranians are, and they are ready to fight to the last Lebanese soldier or civilian.
The conclusion is that for deterrence to work, we need to deter Iran, a nation with a land area of 636,000 square miles and more than 80 million people, which is presently undergoing a serious military buildup and will very shortly have nuclear weapons. I can see only one threat powerful enough to do that, and that is a nuclear threat a balance of terror like the one that held between the US and the Soviet Union in the latter part of the 20th century. Israel would need to convey to the Iranians that a massive missile attack from Hezbollah will trigger a nuclear response against Iran.
This would be a much less stable and more frightening balance of terror than the US-Soviet one. For one thing, the distances are so short that there is very little time to decide how to react in the event of an alert. For another, the Iranian nuclear program is spooking other countries into obtaining nuclear weapons, for sale by actors like Pakistan or North Korea. Saudi Arabia is the most likely candidate to go nuclear this way, but Egypt is also a possibility. Then there is the destabilization that could be provoked by large-scale terrorism, even using nuclear materials, if not nuclear bombs. Deterrence by nuclear threat is not a good long-term solution.
The solution to the Hezbollah rocket problem may come from Russia. I dont believe that a destructive war between Israel and Hezbollah is in Russias interests, and Putins actions so far seem to indicate that he also feels this way. Russia might restrain Hezbollah, or even force it to divest itself of the rocket system in the south. I am not sure what inducement Israel could offer to Russia, but this is at least a possibility.
In the past 15 years or so, the Middle East has irrevocably changed. The large Arab states created after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan are in chaos or barely avoiding it. Iran is daily becoming more powerful and advancing its program to create a Shiite crescent all the way to the Mediterranean (and yes, we seem to be in its way). The US has lost most of its ability to influence events here, and Russia is now the main player. Even China is showing an interest.
In Israel, we seem not to have noticed. The daily newspapers are devoted to events in the US, to speculation about what Trump will do or analysis of his somewhat random remarks. But perhaps we should be more interested in what happens in Moscow than Washington?
It seems like every day brings a new anti-Jewish incident in the US. Journalists are harassed by anti-Jewish Twitter trolls, cemeteries are desecrated and Jewish organizations receive bomb threats. Of course it is not like Jew-hatred in France, where Jewish fingers are sawed off, but it is still shocking. People expect it in Europe, much of which agreed with Hitler that the Jews were the misfortune of the countries they lived in, but America since WWII has been the one place in the world other than Israel where a Jew could forget (most of the time) to watch his back.
The ADL and FBI maintain statistics on anti-Jewish acts. The FBIs hate crimes numbers are available from 1996 to 2015, and show a steady decline in anti-Jewish crimes from over 1100 in 1996 to 664 in 2015. The ADL keeps track of incidents which may or may not be crimes, and statistics have been presented in annual audits since 1979. The recent trend is similar to the FBI statistics, although the numbers are somewhat higher (for example, they report 941 incidents in 2015). The peak year was 1994, in which the ADL reported 2,066 incidents, including 25 arsons, 10 attempted arsons, and a mass shooting in which one person was murdered (by a Lebanese immigrant as revenge for the Baruch Goldstein massacre). One of the changes over the years is an increasing number of incidents on college campuses, mostly on background of the Middle East conflict.
But with the 2016 presidential campaign, it seems as though there has been an explosion of Jew-hatred. Is this true? Who is responsible?
It seems to me that there are three kinds of perpetrators of anti-Jewish acts. First there are the organized neo-Nazis, skinheads, white supremacists, and so forth. Then there are anti-Israel activists. Finally, there is the kind of Jew-hatred that I remember from my childhood, ordinary people who express their dislike of Jews in the context of neighborhood disputes, teenage bullying, or petty crime.
Has there been a sudden increase in membership among neo-Nazi groups? I doubt it. And I think that the ordinary people category has been becoming smaller in recent years. On the other hand, anti-Israel activity, especially on campuses, has grown rapidly. Radical delegitimization of Israel in the alternative media (and even in the left-leaning segments of the mainstream media) has motivated and excused extremist activists to express themselves in anti-Jewish ways. It really doesnt make sense to hate Israel and love Jews, as some suggest they do, and how better to support the Palestinian people than by drawing a swastika on someones door?
There is also a revival of traditional anti-Jewish attitudes on the Left, such as appeared in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which liked to talk about Jewish control of banks and media. And more recently, the Black Lives Matter movements intersectional embrace of the Palestinian movement has given impetus to already simmering black antisemitism.
But despite all this, the explosion of Jew-hatred associated with the election has been blamed on Trump and the Right.
In 2016 a very well-publicized anti-Jewish event occurred: Jewish journalists were harassed by thousands of hateful tweets. Interestingly, while they included the usual traditional memes (banks, Holocaust, media control, etc.) the most common subjects had to do with Zionism and Israel. The ADLs analysis showed that 68% of some 20,000 anti-Jewish tweets directed at journalists came from only 1,600 Twitter accounts, illustrating the force-multiplier effect of social media. And since journalists were targeted, we were guaranteed to hear about it. Much of the activity could have been automated. We saw a technically similar (but far less vicious) phenomenon when Ron Paul ran for president in 2012, and online polls and website comments sections were inundated with pro-Paul material. A small group was able to have a disproportionally large effect.
The campaign against the Jewish journalists was related to the campaign of Donald Trump, both as a trigger (journalists who criticized him were targeted) and in content (anti-Jewish tweeters suggested that Trump was on their side). The tweeters were encouraged by white supremacist web sites, and it is clear that this element has adopted Trump as its champion. I dont intend to try to analyze Trumps thinking and motivations here, but I do not believe that he shares their ideology. And he definitely does not benefit from the association.
The public manifestation of Jew-hatred by white supremacists adds to the anti-Jewish signals coming from the pro-Palestinian Left. The fact that people now hear and see this stuff all the time legitimizes it and emphasizes it. Just as words can be said on television today that once were never heard at all in polite society, ideas that were considered too ugly to be expressed in public have become not just thinkable, but sayable. Many Americans have always held classically anti-Jewish beliefs (see Tuvia Tenenboms book The Lies they Tell), but the public expression of these ideas has always been socially unacceptable at least until recently. This adds to the impression that Jew-hatred is at an all-time high.
Now we come to the latest manifestations of Jew-hatred in America, the bomb threat campaign in which at least 100 threats have been made against Jewish institutions in 5 waves (as of Wednesday), and the damaging of headstones in two Jewish cemeteries.
The bomb threat is one of the easiest and most inexpensive means imaginable to create chaos and get media attention. In about 10 seconds of googling, I found countless websites that offered services and applications to make anonymous phone calls. Some bragged that they dont log IP addresses and some were outside of the US. Some offered text-to-speech conversion, so the perpetrator doesnt even have to disguise his or her voice. The use of a VPN with such a site would make it doubly hard to track down the caller (although there are ways).
Something which in the past was risky I remember bomb scares at my middle school in which the perpetrators were caught the next day and expelled, sent to what was called reform school is now trivial and safe. Any 14-year old can do it and not get caught, at least for a while. All 100 calls could easily have been made by one or two persons. It is not indicative of a wave of Jew-hatred.
The cemetery vandalism has also been given publicity far beyond its importance. Cemetery vandalism happens all the time, including to Jewish cemeteries. Sometimes its anti-Jewish and sometimes not. According to a blog written by Emily Ford, who owns a company that provides planning, maintenance, restoration and research services to cemeteries, there were 127 incidents of vandalism affecting at least 1,811 individual markers costing at least $488,000 in the US in 2016. And this is a conservative estimate, because much vandalism isnt reported. Three Jewish cemeteries were among those hit last year, but so was a cemetery containing the graves of notable Confederate figures, which were tagged with anti-racist graffiti. Vandalism is almost inevitable in any sparsely-staffed cemetery, Ford writes. If 2016s data is any indicator, nobody should be shocked by cemetery vandalism. Indeed, and normally it is not of interest to the media.
- With the exception of certain highly publicized events, there are fewer anti-Jewish hate crimes and incidents than in the recent past.
- Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are still around, but more and more of the Jew-hatred is coming from the pro-Palestinian extreme Left.
- A smallish group of provocateurs was responsible for the massive anti-Jewish harassment of journalists on Twitter.
- It has become more acceptable to publically express dislike or even hatred of Jews, but theres no reason to think these attitudes have suddenly gotten stronger or more popular.
- The bomb threat calls could have been made by one or two people and have no real significance as an indicator of a spike in Jew-hatred.
- Cemetery vandalism is common. There is nothing out-of-the-ordinary in two Jewish cemeteries being vandalized, except the media attention. Usually its teenagers that knock down headstones.
So, should we just say nothing to see here, move along?
No, I dont think so. The country is probably not becoming more anti-Jewish. There is not a real spike in anti-Jewish incidents or behavior. But there may be something else.
Trump has claimed that the other side is responsible for the bomb threats. Ha ha, that crazy narcissistic Trump. But what if hes right? What if the tweets and bomb threats were part of a plan, a plan that may just be getting off the ground, to delegitimize him and destabilize his administration? What if the idea is to make it impossible for him to make appointments or to get congressional support for his initiatives? To build an increasingly numerous and vociferous group of protestors that wont give him a moments rest?
Add to this the fabrications against Bannon and Gorka throughout liberal media. If its possible to tar Trump and his key people with the brush of antisemitism, it will go a long way toward destroying him.
They dont need a complicated conspiracy. Just the ability to do a few simple dirty tricks and to use fortuitous events, perhaps like the cemetery vandalism, to amplify the effect. And a media echo chamber. Sound familiar?
I have no idea who they might be his domestic opposition, people in the intelligence community, or even an international actor. Maybe Im as hysterical as the rest, and there are no connections between events, just a few delinquent teenagers making sophisticated prank calls.
But if there is something to it, then whatever you may think about Trump it is one of the most profoundly anti-democratic maneuvers in American history.
I opened my newspaper this morning (Wednesday) and was greeted with the headline: the White House has no comment on the regularization law that was passed yesterday, and will talk about it when PM Netanyahu visits Washington to meet with President Trump next week.
Imagine my relief. I mean, why should the White House have an opinion about something which is really an internal Israeli affair? I am amused well, pretty irritated, actually by the way Haaretz and my social media friends have decided to call it the land grab law, when it actually goes farther to compensate owners of land than customary common law would. As Eugene Kontorovich explains,
Israels proposed Regulations Bill has attracted broad international criticism, including from the U.S. State Department and the European Union, as well as from opposition Israeli politicians and some government lawyers. The bill seeks to solve a situation in which, over several decades, over one thousand Israeli homes in West Bank settlements have been built in open areas to which Palestinians subsequently asserted property claims, typically based on broad give-aways of state land by the King of Jordan during the Hashemite occupation (1949-67). The homes are in communities built with some level of government involvement. Thus the bill provides the government would compensate the landowners 125% of the value of the land, in order to allow the communities that have been built there to remain.
The plots are generally open, uncultivated fields. The frequently used characterization of private Palestinian lands is misleading. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no individual Palestinians have come forward to claim the lands. Indeed, in most cases, no property claimants asserted their interests for decades after houses were built, a situation that in common law would certainly warrant the application of adverse possession doctrines, under which long-term possession of property unprotested by owners can change legal title, exactly to prevent these kinds of conflict between long-term users and owners who slept on their rights . Under Jordanian law, rules of prescription, which would turn the land over to its existing inhabitants, would apply. In cases like the community of Amona, which inspired but are not covered by the law, the Court made its determination without any fact-finding, and the lands claimed by the Palestinian petitioners only slightly overlap with those on which the Israeli homes stand.
Its not really a big deal, is it? No Palestinians are being exploited, and the residents of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are just getting the same kind of protection for their investment as people in the rest of Israel, the US and many other developed countries have. Better, since the state is willing to pick up the tab for compensation.
Of course the world leaders in virtue and morality, the EU and the governments of Germany and France, are dead set against the law. The folks whose wisdom brought us two world wars and a Holocaust have lost confidence that we are serious about the two-state solution that they hope will slice our country into indefensibility.
Later today I listened on the radio to the reactions of the European representatives in Israel. You would think that the Knesset had passed a law demanding that the Palestinians must throw all their male children into the sea, and not one that simply makes it possible to compensate people in return for taking property that they may not even have clear title to, and havent used for years, if ever. I am becoming more and more convinced that after Iran, Europe is our greatest enemy, and the Palestinians their weapon.
Well, Amona is rubble, its residents are homeless, and the cabal made up of the Civil Administration (the military entity that rules Area C, where almost all Jewish settlements are and few Arabs live), the left-leaning legal establishment, and the subversive European-paid NGOs are smacking their lips over how they will do the same to numerous other Jewish communities, just as soon as the Supreme Court voids the new law.
Because, after all, who cares what the democratically elected Knesset and government decide? Dont we understand who really runs the country and knows whats good for us? Those religious settler fanatics are an obstacle to peace! Just ask the talking heads on Israeli radio and TV.
Which brings me to the next headline: Channel 2 reports that Netanyahu told the police that have been investigating him nonstop for who knows how long, that he didnt know about bottles of champagne and other gifts received by his wife from a businessman friend, and he didnt check the value of cigars that he himself was given. He just smoked them! Not only that, but he told the police that he bought plenty of cigars with his own money.
So, just some random thoughts on this scandal: Channel 2 has been selectively dribbling out information about Netanyahus supposedly confidential police investigations for months. Where do they get it, and why is it OK for them to release out-of-context snippets of interrogations in a country where the names and faces of people accused of crimes are routinely redacted from news reports?
The investigation itself is on the same level as one of the previous ones, in which Mrs. Netanyahu was accused of returning deposit bottles that had been used at official functions, and keeping the money. Yes, she did it; yes, the small amount of money was returned; and yes, the silliness of creating a scandal about deposit bottles was duly noted.
The fact is that the same media people that deliberately mischaracterize the regularization law and also gleefully bash Netanyahu on every occasion, are running a long-term project to make him look like a crook. How much of the evening news is devoted to his non-scandals, almost every day? How many hours has he wasted, answering police questions and trying to deal with the fallout from these frivolous investigations? Hes the Prime Minister of the strongest country in the region, economically and militarily, the one and only Jewish state which half the world hates and wants to destroy and you are busting his balls about some cigars?
This isnt really funny. Netanyahu has said that he believes there is a media campaign to force the Attorney General to indict him. And if he is indicted, he could be forced to resign.
The story on page 11 of the newspaper reminds me that not everything is frivolous or political. It is about Trump and Iran trading barbs over the Iranian missile development program. Now that Obama is gone, it may be possible for the US and Israel to develop an effective policy to prevent their common enemy, Iran, from producing and deploying nuclear weapons.
I devoutly hope that this will be the main subject for discussion between Netanyahu and Trump, rather than Judean real estate law. Or cigars.
Tuesday afternoon we started to hear that the police and IDF were preparing to remove the 40 families that live in the community of Amona, in the Binyamin region of Judea. Just now, a few moments ago, I heard on the radio that the evacuation (some prefer expulsion) is beginning. It doesnt look like it will go smoothly.
To explain the situation in the fewest possible words, the community was built 20 years ago. A portion of it, about one half acre out of a total of 125 acres, is owned by Palestinian Arabs who were given title to the land by the King of Jordan, during the 19-year Jordanian occupation. About 15 more acres are registered in the names of Arabs who apparently do not exist.
The Supreme Court of Israel decided that the only acceptable remedy was to bulldoze the entire community. The Court did not accept the suggestion that the Arab owners, who had never utilized the land, could be paid compensation for it. The government developed a compromise that would have provided an alternative location nearby for some of the families, which the community agreed to. But this was stymied when additional Palestinians petitioned the court claiming to own that land. The residents were only told that the deal was off a few days ago.
The Palestinians have been assisted in their legal proceedings by the Israeli organization Yesh Din. Yesh Din received more than $4.6 million from foreign government bodies between 2012 and 2016. Foreign sources accounted for 93.5% of their total donations. Yesh Din specializes in lawfare against Israel and the IDF.
This raises, yet again, a very fundamental question for the State of Israel. In a sentence, what are we?
Are we the nation-state of the Jewish people in its historical homeland, which derives its right to the land from both the biblical promise made to us by Hashem and the modern promise made by the international community in the Palestine Mandate, a right that we defended more than once by force of arms? Are we a Zionist state, in other words?
Or are we something else a multinational state which exists at the pleasure of todays post-nationalist, anti-Jewish international establishment?
It would seem that the answer should be obvious, and it is to the great majority of Israeli Jews. But the state has not acted as though it believes in its own Zionist principles.
When the Jordanian occupation and its illegal annexation of land set aside for the Jewish people was ended in 1967, Israel did not annex Judea and Samaria, because its leadership was forced by its friends in Europe and the US to accept the idea of land for peace. Israel would give Judea and Samaria back to Jordan, for example, and Jordan would give us a peace treaty.
The injustice inherent in this is obvious. Who gave Jordan the right to take that land in violation of international law and to ethnically cleanse it of Jews? How can we be asked to give something back that was ours in the first place? But this was our policy until King Hussein decided in 1988 that he didnt want the hassle of trying to control the PLO, and transferred his ownership of the land to the PLO. And shortly thereafter, the Israeli government tried to continue the land for peace process with the PLO via the Oslo accords.
Israel never annexed the land it regained in 1967 (except for Jerusalem) and it even retained Jordanian law in Judea and Samaria. Because Israeli governments believed that some or all of the territory would ultimately be returned to Arab control, it treated it as occupied territory, despite the fact that, by the most reasonable interpretation of international law, for the first time since 1948 it was not under occupation.
24 years later and several wars and intifadas later, Israelis have finally come to realize that an exchange of land for peace wont bring peace. Anyone with half a brain who looks at recent history (especially the results of the withdrawal from Gaza) and listens to what the Palestinians themselves say and do, understands that.
Its often said that surveys show that a majority of Israelis favor a 2-state solution. That is correct, if the survey question is something like Do you favor giving up the territories in return for peace and security? The unfairness of this question is manifest if we rewrite it as follows: If giving up the territories would bring peace and security, would you favor it?
Since giving up the territories would put a terrorist entity next door to Tel Aviv, and since the Arabs wont even pretend to agree that they would give up their claims on Israel in return for the territories, and since the PLO is unstable and easily overthrown, the if clause of the conditional statement is certainly false. And virtually every Israeli knows this.
A religious Zionist also understands the importance to his or her spiritual life of the places mentioned in the tanach, like Hevron and many others. But even a secular Zionist appreciates the first words of the Declaration of Independence:
ERETZ-ISRAEL was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Virtually every Israeli knows this as well except possibly much of our leadership and our legal establishment.
If the lessons of history, international law, and Zionist ideology (both religious and secular) were translated into action, the courts would find a way to legalize Amona and other communities that would also be fair to the Arabs. Ultimately, we would annex all of Eretz Israel.
Unfortunately, the government has yet to get clear of the land for peace mentality; and the legal establishment seems dedicated to beating us into the mold of the multinational, secular democratic state that former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak so much admired.
This needs to change. Fear of the international community is not a reason to deny our own birthright. Politicized institutions like the UN and the International Criminal Court have no moral authority, and no practical way to punish Israel. And there is absolutely no reason we must allow foreign agents like Yesh Din to continue to subvert our country.
In fact, now, while there is an American government that for the first time may itself be able to shake off the ideas of land for peace and the 2-state solution, is the perfect time for Israel to finally become the truly Zionist state that Jabotinsky, Begin and Ben-Gurion dreamed of.
I watched the Israeli TV news last night, which showed excerpts from the funerals of the four young people who were run down by a terrorist (a Jerusalem Arab) driving a large truck, who then turned around and took another run at them before being shot. It was hard to bear. So I am not at all in a pleasant mood.
The Palestinian strategy aims to drive the Jews out of the land of Israel by a combination of violence and diplomatic pressure. Lately, a diplomatic offensive has coincided with both official and unofficial Palestinian incitement to terrorism.
Two weeks ago UN Security Council resolution 2334 was passed, calling Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem illegal, and defining all the land outside the 1949 armistice line as occupied Palestinian land. 2334 is certainly the most anti-Israel resolution that has ever come out of the Security Council, and one of the worst products of the UN since the General Assembly declared Zionism racism in 1975.
Instead of vetoing it, as it has previous anti-Israel resolutions, the Obama Administration abstained and allowed it to pass. Indeed, the Israeli government believes that the administration even helped create it. The administration insists that there is nothing new in the resolution. But actually it upends other critical UN resolutions and marks a very significant shift in American policy.
Resolution 2334 was criticized by almost every legitimate Jewish institution in the US and Israel (that is, every one to the right of J Street, the phony pro-Israel group set up by George Soros to challenge AIPAC). Even the Union for Reform Judaisms Rick Jacobs had to admit that the UN has disqualified itself from playing a constructive role in dealing with the conflict, although he seems to agree with most of the resolutions content.
One of the many serious implications of the resolution was that virtually all the important holy places of Judaism were placed on Palestinian land, including of course the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (the Kotel hamaaravi).
So I was surprised and even shocked when I saw this news item:
Israeli NGO Mattot Arim reports that Women of the Wall refuses to take part in the efforts to oppose the recent anti-Kotel UN resolution.
Mattot Arim said it turned to Women of the Wall for help in opposing the resolution because the latters website places the Western Wall very high on its pedestal. The site states the Western Wall is the principal symbol of Jewish peoplehood and sovereignty. It also refers positively to the Jewish peoples return to Jerusalem in 1967.
Mattot Arim pointed out to WoW that the new UNSC Resolution states precisely the opposite namely, the Security Council does not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem. This means not only Judea and Samaria, but also all of eastern Jerusalem, the Western Wall and the Old City, is territory illegally occupied by Israel.
WoW said in response that it would not take a stance on the resolution nor join the effort to rescind it. The Women wrote to Mattot Arim that their struggle is to achieve equality for women at the Kotel. They said they choose not to comment on issues which are outside the purview of our struggle because our group comprises women of many different political persuasions.
Mattot Arim is a politically right-wing organization, and the WoW are mostly left-wingers. But it would certainly seem that on this issue they would have common ground. Ironically, if resolution 2334 were implemented and the Temple complex turned over to the Arabs, most likely there would be perfect equality between Jewish men and women at the Kotel neither group would be allowed to pray there!
Many WoW members support the extreme left-wing Meretz party, which except for the Arab parties is the only one in the Knesset that applauded the passage of 2334. For Meretz, theres no greater evil than settlements and occupation. These are the ones whose political persuasions present a problem.
But then why bother to demonstrate against Israeli policies that discriminate against women at the Kotel if you think the site shouldnt be part of Israel at all?
Maybe they should think about the conflict between their Jewish spirituality and their politics.
At 10 AM on Wednesday, a military court handed down the verdict in the manslaughter trial of Sgt. Elor Azaria, called by the media the soldier who shot in Hevron.
10 months ago, Azaria shot and killed an Arab terrorist who was lying on the pavement, several minutes after the terrorist was shot and wounded while stabbing another soldier, who was lightly injured.
The IDFs rules of engagement stipulate that deadly force should not be used in such circumstances (considered law enforcement rather than war) unless there is an immediate threat to life. Azaria said that he thought there was such a threat, that the terrorist could have been wearing an explosive vest under his jacket.
He was initially charged with murder, but the prosecution decided that it would be difficult to prove premeditation. The manslaughter charge only requires a deliberate, wrongful killing. He could be sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison, but he will probably get much less than that.
In Israeli military court there are three judges, one of whom is the head judge, a professional who is appointed by the President of the state, on recommendation of the Judicial Selection Committee, like civilian judges. The other two can be officers who may not have a legal background. In this case there were two professionals and a field commander. Cases are decided by a majority vote. There are no juries.
The verdict and the penalty turn on whether the judges believe Azarias testimony. They could have decided that he lied, or that he was telling the truth but should have acted differently, based on the information available to him. Or they could decide that he told the truth and that his action was justified.
The trial has been the biggest thing in the media for the past months, bigger than all the countless sexual harassment scandals put together. The country is strongly divided about the appropriate response to Azarias act, ranging from jail time to a medal. Before the verdict was announced, there were rowdy demonstrations in his favor outside the courtroom (which had been moved to a more secure location and closed to the public).
Its important in this connection to note why the incident became a media circus. The shooting was videotaped by an activist for the left-wing NGO Btselem and the tape shown over and over by the media. What would probably have been a simple matter one way or the other became a national affair.
Im not going to discuss all the evidence that has been presented, such as whether he heard a paramedic at the scene call out watch out, he has a suicide vest, whether shooting might detonate the vest, whether the terrorist had already been checked, and more. The trial went on for 6 months, and a great deal of testimony was presented. The courts opinion will cite the facts that the judges found important in reaching their decision.
My guess before the announcement was that he would be convicted that the judges would decide that a reasonable soldier would not have fired, given the facts and the rules of engagement. I also thought that the sentence will be relatively light, in consideration of the pressures on the soldier.
At exactly 10 AM, I turned on the radio. Israel Radios reporters repeated the words of the head judge, Maya Heller, as she read the verdict (the court did not permit the proceedings to be broadcast, so a reporter inside transmitted her words by WhatsApp to the broadcasters outside). Because there is a requirement that an innocent defendant must be informed immediately, the fact that there was no such announcement at the beginning the whole judgment took 2-1/2 hours to read told the story.
Elor Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter and conduct unbecoming of an IDF soldier.
The judges did not believe him, and the judgment was unrelievedly harsh. They rejected every one of his points of defense. They did not accept his explanation that he was afraid the terrorist had an explosive vest or that he was reaching for a knife. They found contradictions between various versions of Azarias story, and said that he appeared to be changing his story as he went along in order to improve his case. They gave significant weight to testimony that Azaria said he stabbed my friend, he deserves to die to another soldier immediately before the shooting. They did not accept arguments from a psychiatric panel that he suffered from PTSD or that he was significantly impaired by lack of sleep or other factors. They accepted the autopsy data that it was Azarias bullet that caused the terrorists death (and rejected the opposing view of former chief pathologist Yehuda Hiss, who did not examine the body). They did not credit the statements of several reserve generals who testified on Azarias behalf. Finally, they decided that the shooting was not merely an error, but demonstrated criminal intent. Criminal intent!
I didnt hear a word of excuse or understanding. The judges agreed with Chief of Staff Eisenkot and former Minister of Defense Yaalon that the shooting was entirely unjustified. Had he been accused of murder, I believe that Azaria would have been convicted of that as well.
The punishment will be determined by the court and announced in about ten days. From what I heard from the judge, I suspect that I was mistaken in thinking that he will get a light sentence.
Something here is wrong.
Of course, the IDFs judges had no alternative. An army has rules, and Azaria broke an important one. His explanation that he felt endangered didnt hold water, no matter how much one wants to support him. He knew what he was doing: killing a terrorist. The court was right about that and the best explanation for his motive was provided by his comment that the terrorist deserved to die. But it didnt have to come to this.
Explaining his tough stance last April, Moshe Yaalon said Part of the power [of the IDF], as many have described it Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and others is our ethical strength. We arent Daesh.
We arent. But we also arent a people who would send a soldier to prison for killing a terrorist. There is a feeling in Israel that has become sort of a slogan in this case, that our soldiers are everyones children. How can we abandon our children? Chief of Staff Eisenkot disagrees. Yesterday he said this:
An 18-year-old man serving in the army is not everyones child. He is a fighter, a soldier, who must dedicate his life to carry out the tasks we give him. We cannot be confused about this.
Hes both right and wrong. A young man who is a soldier does have to dedicate his life to and sometimes lose it for his country and his people, at least for the 32 months of his service. But he is still everyones child. Yaalon said that part of our power comes from our ethical strength, but it also comes from the way we love our soldiers and our army. There are many who would like Israel to have a professional army, but this hasnt happened yet (and I think it would be a disaster).
Among the most troubling aspects of this case were the statements condemning Azarias act made by Eisenkot, Yaalon, other officers, and even PM Netanyahu (who later changed his tune) immediately after the Btselem video was made public. Eisenkot and Yaalon later said that it wasnt the video that convinced them, that they already had received evidence from the chain of command but surely it had something to do with their making public statements of this sort (in the US, this would be grounds for appeal).
Indeed, this is where everything went off the rails. Elor Azaria should have had a hearing with his commanding officer, and maybe gotten a weekend of guard duty and an explanation of the rules. Instead, thanks to a video camera probably bought with European money, another kind of soldier, one fighting the cognitive war against Israel, threw the nation into chaos. As usual, we walked right into this.
The distinction between law enforcement and war becomes blurred when terrorists are stalking us and especially our soldiers and police in the streets, with every day bringing reports of stabbings and vehicular attacks, as was the case when Azaria killed his terrorist. No, Azarias wasnt a split-second decision where hesitation could be fatal, as the court noted, but our soldiers and police do face such decisions on a daily basis. Could not this verdict deter them from taking action in a situation that isnt so clear-cut?
Soldiers dont make good policemen anyway. They are trained to kill the enemy, not to detain suspects who have rights. Enemy soldiers in a firefight dont have rights.
And we mustnt forget that in the eyes of our enemies in todays asymmetric war, no Jew in the Land of Israel, from a baby to an 80-year old grandmother, has a right to live. Possibly if the nation had an official death penalty for terrorism, soldiers wouldnt feel the need to take the law into their own hands.
In this kind of war, is the principle that a terrorist deserves to die a bad one?
I am writing on Wednesday, after the passage of UNSC resolution 2334 and John Kerrys speech laying out his parameters for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And after that, there will or will not be another Security Council resolution, in which the so-called international community will continue on its path to making Israel indefensible and ultimately seeing her disappear.
Today Im going to take a longer view and ask a more fundamental question than how are they going to try to stick it to us tomorrow? Today I want to know whats in it for them in sticking it to us?
This is interesting, because the obvious answer seems to be nothing. Look at this objectively: Israel is a tiny country which actually contributes a lot to civilization in science, technology, medicine and more. The Palestinians (PLO and Hamas varieties) basically have one interest, and that is destroying Israel and taking over their tiny piece of land. Their major contribution to civilization seems to be the popularization of airline hijacking and suicide bombing. Israel tried several times to give away large chunks of its country which it is fully entitled to keep in order to end the conflict, but the Palestinians have refused every time. Lucky for us.
Most of the nations, if asked, would say that it has to do with the human rights of the Palestinians. This is interesting too, because the Palestinians seem to think they have a right to kill anyone Jewish they come across. Israel argues persuasively that it really has to take security measures that affect the Palestinians, because otherwise they would exercise their right to murder us. How do we know? Experience: the withdrawal from Gaza and the various prisoner releases. Give them a chance, and they try to kill us. It happens every time.
Its even more interesting that for all the people deprived of their human rights around the world often much more severely than the Palestinians, who have more rights than Arabs living in Arab countries the international community expends far more money and energy on the Palestinians than on anyone else.
So lets try to figure this out. Who would benefit if the Palestinians got their wish and we disappeared? Possibly only the Palestinians themselves and Iran, which wants to become the regional hegemon and sees us as an obstacle. But how does that explain the anti-Israel activity in almost all the European countries, especially the most progressive ones like the Scandinavian countries, France, Germany, Britain and others? How does it explain that other pole of the Axis of anti-Israelness, the White House? And how does it explain the particular passion with which they have taken sides?
Interests are insufficient to explain this. We need to look at psychology.
The Palestinians got their start from the Soviet KGB as a weapon against American influence in the Middle East. The Soviet psychological warfare experts melded third-world anti-imperialism with traditional Jew-hatred to create the meme of an oppressed Palestinian people whose human rights were being denied them by vicious European Jewish colonists. This powerful but totally false story, convincingly told, found its way into leftist dogma. It was eagerly lapped up by the affluenza-sufferers of the New Left, many of them Jewish, who were looking for a connection to the Wretched of the Earth, in the words of Frantz Fanon.
People are fond of saying that they are critical of Israeli policy but they dont hate Jews. But passionate anti-Zionism is never pure. A natural question to ask is, if Israel is so evil, what makes it so? And the obvious answer is because the Jews are evil. Anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred go together. One gives rise to the other. The Palestinians made-up history only works if you believe Israeli Jews capable of deliberate ethnic cleansing and murder; if you believe that they are like Nazis. And if Jews are like Nazis, then their state is a Nazi state.
When the New Lefties of 1960s Europe grew up, many of them became Social Democrats. While they may have grown away from anarchism and created its opposite in the European Union, they kept their ideas about Israel and the Palestinians. It was a satisfying relief for Europeans, embarrassed by their fathers crimes during the Holocaust, to realize that the Jews themselves were actually Nazis.
In America, the New Left virtually conquered academia, where terrorists like Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn became respected members of the academic community. Big grants to universities from Saudi Arabia and other oil states ensured that there would be Middle East Studies departments to promote the correct line on Israel.
The Left in America was very fertile ground for Jew hatred. It was politically incorrect to say that you hated Jews, but you could say anything you wanted about Israel. And what about the Israel Lobby? And little by little, like in the Occupy movement, it became OK to suggest that maybe Jews had too much influence in the media, Hollywood and banking.
The black community in America was infected with anti-Jewish attitudes as well, probably originally traceable to the Nation of Islam, later amplified by conflicts with Jewish landlords, teachers and shop-owners, and fertilized by the influence of the radical Left on the Black Power movement.
Barack Obamas ideas about Israel and the Palestinians probably developed from multiple sources: his early Muslim background; the influence of friends like Ayres and Dohrn, anti-Israel blogger Ali Abunimah, Columbia professor and PLO operative Rashid Khalidi, and academics like Edward Said; and the anti-Jewish climate in the black community. Obama chose advisors that shared his point of view, like Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes and Rob Malley.
The Muslim world quite naturally cleaved to the side of the Palestinians, because, after all, most Palestinians are Muslims. But there was also a sinister cross-pollination from ancient European Jew-hatred that was introduced by Hitlers associate Haj Amin al-Husseini, as well as the numerous Nazi war criminals that found asylum in places like Egypt and Syria after the war. Egypt has virtually no Jews left, and yet a common insult there is to call someone a Jew. When Mubarak was deposed, cartoons and posters showed him with a star of David on his forehead.
It is now possible to understand the automatic majority votes against Israel in the UN, or, more to the point, the obsessive focus of the UN on Israel, and why real atrocities that occur elsewhere in the world are comparatively barely noticed. We can see why the terrorism committed on a regular basis by Palestinians against Jews for at least a hundred years receives only lip service, while Jewish building in Jerusalem makes Obama furious. We can understand why the outcome of the vote for Security Council resolution 2334 was greeted with sustained applause. We can see why the European nations and the EU spend millions of Euros every year supporting subversive anti-state NGOs in Israel, and why the human rights of Palestinians are more important to them than those of anyone else. And we can see why Barack Obama has consistently worked against Israel over his entire term, winding up with a still-unfolding diplomatic strike.
Even though national interest is cited Kerry even argued in his speech that American interests were served by destabilizing Israel! the real motivation for these policies is deep, irrational, and unfortunately, very familiar.
On Friday, December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334 with a vote of 14 in favor and one abstention the US.
What does the resolution say? A lot of things (full text is here), but some of the important ones are
- The statement that Israels establishment of settlements across the Green Line (including eastern Jerusalem) has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace, and the demand that Israel cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.
- The condemnation of attempts to change the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.
- The statement that the UN will recognize no changes in the pre-1967 lines except those agreed upon by both sides.
- The call for all States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.
- The condemnation of violence, terrorism, incitement, etc. (The fig leaf that allowed the US to abstain on what was originally a 100% anti-Israel resolution).
- The request that the UN Secretary-General report on the progress of implementing the resolution every three months.
Is the resolution binding? No. It is a Chapter VI resolution, which is defined as a recommendation. So the UN cant impose sanctions on Israel for violating its provisions. Only a Chapter VII resolution would be binding and would allow the imposition of economic sanctions or even the use of military force.
That makes settlements, illegal, right? No. It just asserts that they are. It refers to the 4th Geneva Convention (art. 49), but the legal argument based on this is particularly weak. A discussion of the basis for Israeli sovereignty over all the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean is here. Its important to understand that this resolution does not create international law, it only expresses the UNs opinion about it.
Does this mean that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory? No. It means that that is what the UN wants to call it. But there is no such thing as Palestine for Israel to occupy, and declarations by the UN cant make it so. Incidentally, the US never accepted this formulation before (see below).
What about the pre-1967 lines? The cease-fire agreements of 1949 that delimited them explicitly say that they are just the lines marking the locations of the armies when the shooting stopped, and they are not borders. They have no political significance. The Arabs particularly insisted on this, because they hoped to push Israel back even further. So the resolution says that the UN will not accept any changes in lines that are meaningless anyway.
Can it be construed as a call for BDS? It will doubtless be seen as a justification for the EU labeling of products from settlements. It will encourage unofficial or official boycotts of settlement products or even Israeli products, academics, artists, sports teams and more, on the basis of the claim that Israel is violating international law. There is no doubt that it will be cited as providing a legal basis for BDS activity, even though it has no legal significance.
Can Israelis be charged in the International Criminal Court on the basis of this resolution? Unclear. The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed by a national of a state party to the Rome Statute or in the territory of a state party. Israel (and the US and Russia!) did not accept the Rome Statute. Palestine while not a sovereign state, managed to get the ICCs prosecutor to accept it as a state party anyway. The legal validity of this is questionable, but in the fantasy world of international politics, who cares?
The ICC can also take cases when directly referred by the Security Council under Chapter VII. This is not the case with this resolution.
Is the resolution balanced? Absolutely not. It affirms the Palestinians public position, which is that all the land beyond the Green Line belongs to them. If anything presupposes the outcome of negotiations, this is it! Israels stance in negotiations has been that it will cede some land to the Palestinians in return for recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, demilitarization of the Palestinian state and an end to further claims (including the right of return). But if the land is recognized as belonging to the Palestinians from the start, then Israel has no right to demand anything in return.
But doesnt it also criticize the Palestinians? They dont see it that way. The resolution condemns all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction. But the official position of the PLO and Hamas is that their terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction is actually not violence, but legitimate resistance to occupation. Israel, in their view, is guilty of all of the above.
Does it encourage terrorism? See the cartoon tweeted by Fatah (Mahmoud Abbas party) at the head of this post.
What is its relationship to previous resolutions and agreements? Although it mentions UNSC resolutions 242 and 336, it contradicts them, as well as the Oslo accords, by referring to occupied Palestinian land (the clause about accepting changes in the lines that are negotiated by the parties is a weak attempt to sidestep this argument). There is no recognition of Palestinian ownership anywhere in international law, and in fact there are good reasons to believe that Israel holds title to it.
How does this represent a significant change in US policy? The US has always insisted that the UN is no place to decide the issues that divide Israel and the Arabs, and that all issues such as borders, settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, and others must be decided by the parties. While it has said that settlement activity is illegitimate it has not previously used the expression illegal. And it has never taken the position that any of the territories is occupied Palestinian land.
In 1994, the UNSC passed a resolution condemning the mass shooting in Hevron by Baruch Goldstein. Here are some of the remarks by US Ambassador Madeline Albright in the discussion following its passage (H/T Jim Wald):
The United States supports the operative paragraphs of the resolution that the Council has just adopted. However, we sought a paragraph-by-paragraph vote on this resolution because we wanted to record our objections to language introduced there. Had this language appeared in the operative paragraphs of the resolution, let me be clear: we would have exercised our veto. In fact, we are today voting against a resolution in the Commission on the Status of Women precisely because it implies that Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory.
We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as occupied Palestinian territory. In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. As agreed between them, those negotiations will begin not later than two years after the implementation of the Declaration of Principles.
How much responsibility does the Obama Administration bear for this resolution? A Palestinian delegation met with administration officials earlier this month to discuss a draft of the resolution that they intended to introduce. At that time, Western diplomatic sources suggested that the administration might go along with it if some of the clauses were toned down, which was done. The resolution was introduced by Egypt in a surprise move; and after Israeli pressure and a statement by President-elect Trump influenced Egypt to delay the vote, it was re-introduced by four other non-permanent Security Council members (New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela) and quickly passed.
PM Netanyahu has credibly accused the Obama Administration of colluding to push the resolution through, saying that it initiated [the resolution], stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed, although the administration denies this. Israeli sources claim that Joe Biden called the president of Ukraine and pressured him to vote for it.
It is true that the US has abstained on anti-Israel resolutions in the past, and even voted affirmatively on some. For example, the Carter Administration voted for UNSC resolution 465 in 1980, which contained some similar language to the present resolution (although President Carter claimed the vote was an unintentional foul-up). Most of these resolutions condemned specific actions of Israel, such as the abduction of Adolf Eichmann in 1960 or the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. But in todays climate of vituperation, hatred and threats against Israel by so many actors in so many different venues, the support of the US for Israel at the Security Council has come to have greater significance. Obamas action is therefore perceived as a serious withdrawal of support.
Does it matter that the US abstained rather than voting for the resolution? After the vote, Ambassador Samantha Power said (at length) that she abstained rather than voting for the resolution because of the well-known anti-Israel bias of the UN, and because it was too narrowly focused on settlements and didnt give enough emphasis to Palestinian terrorism. She indicated that she would have vetoed it if it had not contained what I called the fig leaf provision condemning terrorism and incitement.
The fact is that the abstention and the long, relatively friendly to Israel speech made by Ms Power will have absolutely zero effect on the consequences of this resolution. The speech will be forgotten, but the content of the resolution will not.
Practically, how bad is this for Israel? It doesnt appear to have any immediate, direct effects. It has no significance in international law. It will not cause Israel to withdraw from the territories and it might even spur Israel to build more in the territories and Jerusalem or even extend Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria.
But it may be only the opening volley in a diplomatic campaign, which could play out before January 20. It sets the stage for follow-on resolutions under Chapter VII that could call for real sanctions against Israel or ICC prosecutions of its leaders, and the requirement for the Secretary General to report every three months will generate even more anti-Israel activity at the UN. It might be cited as a reason for arrest and harassment of Israelis abroad under the principle of universal jurisdiction, or even an ICC prosecution without a Chapter VII resolution. It will be used to justify boycotts, and even terrorism.
And perhaps most important in the short term at a time that worldwide hatred and threats against the Jewish people and the Jew among nations are greater than ever before, it will encourage Israels enemies, who will take it as a sign that the international community, including the US, is behind them.
Dear Mr. President-Elect and Mr. Prime Minister,
You understand that you are being tested, do you not?
Mr. Trump, they want to know if you are as tough as you say you are and if you will live up to your promises. And Mr. Netanyahu, will you for once confront an issue head-on instead of finding a way to deflect it?
Im talking about the embassy.
Jerusalem has been Israels capital since the cease-fire agreements were signed in 1949. The Knesset, the seat of Israels government, has been there ever since except for a few months in 1949, when it met in a Tel Aviv theater while a more permanent location was prepared. Jerusalem was also the capital of the Kingdom of Judah under King David around 1000 BCE. Israel has never had another capital.
When the city was divided and part of it was occupied by Jordan, it remained the capital of Israel. Even if under some hypothetical peace agreement the city were to be re-divided, it would still be the capital of Israel. The argument that recognition of this fact somehow presupposes the outcome of negotiations or is an obstacle to peace is ludicrous. Nobody is talking about putting the embassy in a disputed part of the city. It would be no different than the Knesset.
Some point to the 1947 UN partition resolution (UNGA 181), which called for all of Jerusalem to be placed under international control, as a justification for denying Israels clear title. But this resolution was a non-binding recommendation and it was never implemented, since the Arabs chose to try to settle the question of a Jewish state by war. If the US Administration and State Department insist on this, then they should also insist that much of the Galil and the Negev also dont belong to Israel, following the map of resolution 181. They dont, because they realize that it would be insane to do so.
The non-recognition of Israels capital is no less than a denial of Israels sovereignty. What else does it mean to say that a state cant choose its own capital city on its own territory?
Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu, if you do not proceed with the transfer of the embassy, you will be allowing the gang of murderers and thieves that the international community and the Israeli government has cravenly anointed as the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, to exercise a terrorists veto over this overdue recognition of Israels sovereignty.
PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat recently said that such a move would create chaos, lawlessness and extremism. He also promised that the infuriated Arab public around the world would force US embassies in their countries to close (presumably by means of rocks and firebombs). Erekat said that moving the embassy would legitimize Israels illegal annexation of eastern Jerusalem. I hate to repeat myself, but how does moving it to western Jerusalem do that?
Erekats comments are meant as a threat that he will invoke the terrorists veto. He knows that you, Mr. Trump, dont want to see US embassies worldwide under siege, and that you, Mr. Netanyahu, dont want to be blamed for yet another intifada in which Israelis, Jewish and Arab, will die. The gangsters of the PLO are confident that this technique that they have employed countless times will be successful yet again.
But appeasement is not the way to respond to terrorism. Surely weve all learned that by now! If the US embassy may not be located in Jerusalem, then why should the Knesset and the Prime Ministers office be there? If Jerusalem isnt part of Israel, why is Tel Aviv? Maybe the Jews should all move back to Poland, Iraq and Russia?
Giving in to blackmail seems like the easy way out, but in the end you will pay ten times as much.
This is a test, Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu. Please dont fail it.