On (wilfully) misquoting Obama

Obama at the AIPAC conference clarifying what his reference to the 1967 lines in his speech last week meant:
“by definition, it means that the parties themselves -- Israelis and Palestinians -- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967”.

Indeed.

And that should have been obvious to anyone who actually read/heard what the said rather than the hysterical reaction from some quarters in Israel.

Defending the declaration

“The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood…

"The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture…”

Extracts from Israel’s Declaration of Independence, read out by David Ben Gurion, almost exactly 63 years ago, as the storm clouds of war gathered.  The following day the Arab world would unite in an attempt to strangle the Jewish State at birth.  Israel won that war, and several since, but today, though the physical threats to its security remain, there is also another war to be fought; it is for the defense of the dreams of Israel’s founding fathers.

In the absence of peace - if we don’t act, they will

And so we appear to have reached the end of the latest fruitless attempt at resolving this too long, and too bloody, conflict.

                                                      

There’s plenty of blame to go around.  The Americans’ early focus on an Israeli settlement freeze ensured that the Palestinians would have a perfect excuse to avoid direct negotiations – even though this had never before been asked of Israel as a condition for peace talks.  Meanwhile, revelations that Mahmoud Abbas had rejected Ehud Olmert’s parting gift of a two-state solution that went beyond anything previously offered to the Palestinians in its crossing of supposed Israeli red lines, was not a promising sign that the Palestinians were even ready to do a deal.

Netanyahu responded to the US’s request by trying to appease Obama while not alienating the settlers, ordering a ten-month moratorium on building in West Bank settlements but insisting it would be a one-time event.  He ignored the advice of wiser heads in his government such as Dan Meridor, who urged him to take the opportunity to make a distinction between the settlement blocs (which, according to all previous peace proposals would remain part of Israel) and settlements that would have to be evacuated in any future peace agreement.

Indefensible Borders

Harvard law professor and noted Israel advocate Alan Dershowitz has said that the best way to win over the ‘undecideds’ when he’s speaking in universities on ‘the case for Israel’, is to show that the ‘pro-Israel’ crowd are also in favor of a two-state solution to the conflict, whereas the ‘pro-Palestinian’ supporters are not.  In other words, whereas the Jewish student society is willing to see a Palestinian state established alongside Israel, the collection of far-leftist, (allegedly) liberal and Muslim students who support the Palestinian cause cannot reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence.

Having been involved in Israel advocacy in universities myself in Britain (a country where the campus anti-Zionism makes the average US university look like an AIPAC conference) I broadly agree with Professor Dershowitz.  There is no question that the best hasbara tool Israel has is the Arab world’s history of rejectionism and its repeated preference for continuing the fight to eliminate the Jewish state, rather than compromising on the land and finally giving the Palestinians a state of their own alongside Israel.

Zionism, religion and the modern State of Israel

BACK IN the UK I was a Zionist.  I supported the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland.  Now I’m an Israeli, it seems I can’t define myself that way anymore without being thought of as either hopelessly anachronistic, or avowedly right-wing.

Sections of the Israeli right have made Zionism synonymous with support for the settlement movement, while sections of the left have acquiesced in this fiction by abdicating ownership of the term.  (It is worth noting that Zionism was originally a progressive liberation movement with its roots in enlightened 19^th century liberalism; closer in spirit to those supporting an end to the occupation of the Palestinians than to the West Bank settlers.  Even the father of what became the Israeli right, Vladimir Jabotinsky, was an avowed liberal who insisted on democratic rights for all the citizens of the putative Jewish state and who spoke resolutely against expelling Arabs from their homes).

The lies they teach their children

I was sitting in a church in Jerusalem’s Old City with participants on a program I work with; young Jews from around the globe, living here for a year to learn about Israeli society and politics.

We wanted them to hear from different religious leaders, and here we were, meeting with a young, Palestinian Christian priest.

He called for an end to Israeli control of the Old City saying that under Arab control “all religions would be respected”.  One of my group remarked that Jews could be forgiven for being sceptical given that no Jew was allowed to set foot in the Old City during the years of Jordanian control between 1949-1967.  Our speaker’s response?  “I’ve never heard of this before.  I’m sure that’s not how it was.”

And the world is silent…

Three events, occurring over the same 48 hours, in three different locations:

In New York, the UN General Assembly endorsed the Goldstone Report into Israel’s ‘Operation Cast Lead’ against Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

In the waters off the coast of Cyprus, the Israeli navy intercepted a vessel containing 300 tons of weaponry and explosives destined for Hizballah, dispatched by Iran.

In Iran itself, mass crowds gathered to curse the ‘Great Satan’, the United States, on the 30^th anniversary of the US Embassy hostage crisis which followed the revolution that overturned the Shah’s secular autocracy and ushered in the Islamist reign of the Ayatollahs.