Netanyahu seems to believe there is no tie between how Israel conducts itself and Arab rejectionism.

During the last two weeks, the media spotlight has focused on the immediate crisis between Benjamin Netanyahu and the Obama administration. Gigabytes have been filled with speculations about whether the crisis initiated during Joe Biden’s visit reflects a rift between Israel and the U.S. But behind the immediate crisis there looms a much deeper problem which pertains to a fallacy in Netanyahu’s worldview that is reflected in all his actions.

In his speech to AIPAC, Netanyahu has repeated a mantra that has defined his thinking throughout his adult life. He said that hatred of radical Islam for Israel has nothing to do with what Israel does, but stems from the fact that Israel is the West’s outpost in the Middle East. Ergo, his reasoning implies, Israel can continue doing whatever it wants: it can build in East Jerusalem, it can expand settlements, because this is not the reason for Arab rejectionism. Furthermore he assumes that time is on Israel’s side; that every year in which Israel continues its current policy enhances its status. This has now led him to tell Nancy Pelosi that peace talks with the Palestinians may have to wait another year, because their demand for a complete freeze of settlement construction is unacceptable.

The fallacy in Netanyahu’s argument is fateful: He takes a grain of truth and builds the wrong argument around it. While there are indeed deep reasons for some aspects of Arab rejectionism, Netanyahu’s way of thinking and his policies have become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and are making peaceful coexistence of Israel with the Arab world impossible in the long run.
An alternative point of view has been defended by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her address to AIPAC: She has pointed out that Israel’s security is ever more jeopardized by changes in rocket technology, and that both Hezbollah and, to a lesser extent, Hamas, are being armed with rockets that reach farther into Israel and have more destructive power than ever before. Under these circumstances Israel gains no security by holding on to parts of the West Bank, because the threat now has a longer reach. Hence only striving towards ending the conflict with the Palestinians can give Israel the West’s unflinching political backing against any political or military threat, and strengthen Arab moderates.

Let us now look in detail at Netanyahu’s fallacy: Historically there were a number of reasons why the Arab world didn’t want a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine. Bernard Lewis has argued for a long time that the Arab world is yearning for the times of the Caliphate, in which the Arab world was a united empire, and that the dream of reinstating the historical greatness of ancient times has not lost its grip on the Arab imagination. Israel is the thorn in the vision of a unified, Arab-Muslim Middle East, and this thorn is placed at the one place that, more than any other, symbolizes the conflict of the three monotheistic religions, Jerusalem.

Assuming that Lewis’ analysis reflects an important aspect of the Arab psyche, the question is what conclusions need to be drawn from this. Netanyahu’s conclusion is: We need to be brash, self-confident and show that we can do whatever we like. In the long run Arabs will accept our existence not because something in their basic mindset has changed, but because they realize that they cannot defeat Israel militarily. In this, Netanyahu continues to be a faithful disciple of Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall thesis, which says that only Israel’s might will get Arabs to accept Israel’s existence.

The question one needs to ask is: At what point would you say that the Arab world has accepted Israel’s existence, and can hence change the policy of building Israel’s existence exclusively on might? At what point do you try to build more constructive relations with the Arab world? The problem with Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall thesis is that it can easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, because no change in the Arab world will be taken as an indication that a cooperative approach is now in order. The result is catastrophic, because Netanyahu actually seems to believe that there is no connection whatsoever between how Israel conducts itself and the Arab world’s relation to Israel. And he also seems to think that time is not of the essence and that Israel can stall further without weakening its position.

Moreover, Netanyahu’s mantra has had powerful influence on many in world-Jewry who mean to defend Israel’s existence. They keep amassing evidence for Arab Anti-Semitism to prove to the world, that Israel must be supported no matter what it does, because it is threatened by Arab Anti-Semitism. But, as the foreign ministry’s professional echelon has realized long ago, this strategy doesn’t work. Hence it has been working towards a re-branding of Israel as a progressive country. The problem is that such a re-branding needs to be backed up by actions that are consistent with it.

There is an alternative way of looking at the Middle East: yes; the Arab imagination has been under the spell of the dream of restoring the Caliphate for a long time. But there have been developments in other directions: Many Arabs have, for a long time, sought a different relation to the West. They have shaken off the mythic-theological way of thinking that sees the Middle East as belonging exclusively to Islam.

True: Radical Islam has surged in the last decades, and much of it has nothing to do with Israel, as Robert Wistrich’s monumental analysis of contemporary anti-Semitism has shown. Al-Qaida emerged for completely different reasons, and only recently has it adopted the Palestinian cause in its rhetoric. But Netanyahu’s conclusion is the wrong one. Israel’s actions do make a difference; they can either play into the hands of radical Islam, or they can empower Arab moderates and strengthen their stand against radicalism.

Netanyahu’s policies are providing radical Islam with the iconic images that consistently weaken moderate Arab positions, both among the Palestinians and elsewhere in the Arab world. This undermines Israel’s security rather than enhancing it. It is high time for him to realize that repeating his old position doesn’t make his ideas true: It is time to overhaul them radically.

To read more click below…
The fallacy of Netanyahu’s worldview

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday blamed U.S. President Barack Obama for delaying the resumption of Middle East peace talks by not standing firm on his demand to see a complete freeze in West Bank settlements.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Abbas said that he would not rescind his own stance on the matter. He added that the Palestinians expected Obama to convince Israel to announce a complete freeze, accusing the American administration of having changed its stance on the matter.

He told the daily that the optimism he had felt following Obama’s election had waned, and he was no longer satisfied with the American president’s performance.
Abbas has made similar remarks over the last few months, both with regard to his disappointment with Obama as well as his demand for a settlement freeze as a condition for re-launching peace talks.

Obama’s special Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has laid blame for the stalled talks on Abbas.

Mitchell believed the Palestinians were showing little enthusiasm for talks because inaction was safer than reentering dialogue when the outcome was so uncertain, the London-based A-Sharq-al-Awsat reported a few days ago.

Mitchell has urged Europe to step up pressure on Abbas in an attempt to kick-start stalled peace talks with Israel, said the paper.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed late last year to a 10-month temporary construction freeze, but the Palestinians have declared that to be insufficient.
Source. haaretz.com

Talks between Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, and George Mitchell, the US Middle East envoy, are continuing behind closed doors in London amid disagreement over West Bank settlements.

Netanyahu has said he wants an agreement that allows Israel to proceed with some settlement construction and to restart peace talks with Palestinians.

But according to some media reports, George Mitchell may offer the prime minister a tougher US line on Iran’s nuclear programme in return for Israel partially freezing settlement building.

The Guardian newspaper reported that the US, along with Britain and France, is planning to push the UN to include Iran’s oil and gas industry in sanctions against the country, a move that could cripple its economy.

Mitchell has been pressing Israel to halt construction of West Bank settlements as a confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians.

Peace talks

Settlements in the West Bank, which Palestinians want for a future state, are home to 300,000 Israelis, and around 2.5million Palestinians.

Barack Obama, the US president, has said he opposes all settlement construction, while Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has staunchly refused to reopen peace talks until Netanyahu halts all settlement activity.

A survey released on Wednesday showed freezing settlements would be an unpopular move among Jewish Israelis, with almost two-thirds of those questioned by the Maagar Mohot polling company saying they opposed the move.

Netanyahu has said he sees the emphasis on settlements as unfair, and insisted conflict in the Middle East is rooted in Arab enmity towards Israel.

The prime minister, who is travelling from London to Germany later on Wednesday, said he hoped peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians would resume “shortly”.

“We are making headway. My government has taken steps in both words and deeds to move forward,” he said before meeting Mitchell.

To read more please click the link below…
US and Israel spar over settlements

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post

Eric Cantor.
Photo: Courtesy: United States Congress

You are coming here, you will be speaking to all the Israeli leaders. What do you think Israel should do now to move the diplomatic process forward?

The congressional delegations that will be going over the next couple of weeks are not there to dictate to Israel what to do. Israel has a democratically elected government, it understands more than any how to protect its citizens, and that should be the first goal: that we should be there in support of our democratic ally in securing its population.

We, as members of Congress, and as those of us who believe very strongly in the US-Israel relationship, those of us who believe that Israel is a vital pillar in our national security strategy, are there to try and see how we can further and enhance that relationship.

Has the assessment that Israel is a “vital pillar” in the US national security strategy been eroded over the last few months?

I think there are certainly some signs to indicate that there could be a shift in the policy, which is why we are going to Israel. Those of us in the Republican delegation, and I believe we have many counterparts on the other side of the aisle, feel very strongly that there should not be a shift in the US-Israel relationship, and that is why we are going to demonstrate our commitment to continuing to strengthen the relationship.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post

Is there daylight between Israel and the US on Iran? There was speculation here that one of the reasons Gates was here this week was to rein Israel in on Iran. Are we on the same page, or are there big differences?

I’m hopeful we are on the same page. I know the vice president has made some comments that have indicated that he feels we should not dictate to Israel what it should do.

I definitely support that statement that it is not US policy to dictate to our democratic ally what it can and cannot do to defend itself, especially against an existential threat being posed by a country in the region. So I’m continuing to work with my colleagues on the Hill to make sure that we do not have any daylight between our two countries.

Can you envision any scenario where the US would take military action against Iran?

That is something that the administration is continuing to weigh. I’ve always been a proponent of making it clear that all options remain on the table. It is very important for us to make sure that is the case, especially as this administration has adopted a policy of engagement with Teheran.

Regarding Syria. What do you think of Washington’s policy of engagements there?

I clearly think that what we must keep our eyes focused on with Syria is that when moves are made in the hopes of trying to facilitate discussions between Syria and Israel, there is a clear understanding of what the expectations are, and that we are at least sensing that we are getting something in return. If we are going to allow for export of technology, if we are going to provide the regime in Syria with some confidence politically, we have to make sure that we are getting something – and that Damascus is giving up something – in return. The status quo is not acceptable as far as Syria is concerned.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

Has Israel made any effort of outreach to you or any other Republicans?

The new ambassador has visited me over the last week. He is obviously new here in Washington and in that capacity is making the rounds on both sides of the aisle.

Is there any link between Obama’s domestic difficulties, the difficulties getting support for his health care plan for example, and what seems to be here a bit of a softening in recent days of the tone toward Israel?

I think, looking form outside into the administration, there is always an awareness of the deep-rooted support for Israel that is present in the US population. I think there have been many of us who have been outspoken about reported pressure being focused on the Netanyahu administration and the Israeli government. So I would have to think that would factor in at some point into the administration’s tone and demeanor in its discussions with Israel.

Much has been made here about the J Street phenomenon, and how Obama has seemed to enlist that organization and say, “Look these are also voices in the Jewish community; it is not a monolithic community; they present an opinion, and that is one that I reflect.”

J Street is clearly outside the mainstream of the American Jewish community. Absolutely. Equally, there is not a monolithic position in any community, much less the American Jewish community, but I would definitely say that J Street is outside the mainstream of the America Jewish community in terms of its positions.

Then why is its profile so high?

I think obviously there are a lot of folks involved with J Street who are very supportive of the White House.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post
Do you think Jews who support Israel and voted for Obama made a mistake?

I don’t think there is any question there is a growing concern in the American Jewish community regarding what is reported to be the voices coming out of the Obama administration.

Could this be a factor in next year’s election? Do you envision some Jews gravitating to the GOP because of this?

The American Jewish community is not unlike the larger American population. We are very affected by the economic situation, and obviously in America today the economy is the first priority as far as the electorate is concerned.

But how about the Jews, do you think because of Obama’s stance on Israel they might say they are going to vote Republican in the next election?

We are a long way off from the election; I wouldn’t want to even delve into that. But I can say this: The strength of the US-Israel relationship, the survival of Israel as a Jewish state, its legitimacy in the eyes of thee world, is obviously of the utmost concern to many in the American Jewish community.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’

By HERB KEINON | Front Lines – the week that was | Jerusalem Post
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there were no informal agreements with Israel on settlement construction. [Former deputy national security adviser] Elliott Abrams said there were. Why is Abrams the only guy coming out on this?

I can’t answer that question. I don’t know why Elliott came out. Obviously he was there; he was very involved in orchestrating the discussion surrounding that letter. I would say this: I support the thrust of the Bush letter. I think the majority of the members of Congress support the thrust of the Bush letter. And again, looking at the big picture here, the priority and focus of our foreign policy should be the impending nuclearization of Iran.

Is Obama leaning too heavily on Israel?

The continued focus on telling Israel what to do, without seemingly requiring steps to be taken on the part of Palestinians and the Arab states, is very troubling to me.

~ Article From Jerusalem Post

For More of the Interview, Please click the link below:
Diplomacy: ‘Settlement issue distracts from Iran’