The U.S.-Israel Relationship Arrives at a Moment of Reckoning
An exclusive talk with former U.S. Special Envoy Martin Indyk on Israel’s new allies, the Gaza blowup, and why Washington shrugged when the peace process collapsed.
BY David Rothkopf AUGUST 26, 2014
When it comes to U.S. Mideast policy, Martin Indyk is something like a human seismograph. Having spent three and a half decades at the leading edge of U.S. policy in the region, the English-born, Australian-raised Indyk has grown acutely sensitive to the shifts, tremors, and upheavals that have signaled change across the Middle East. Indyk has twice served as America's ambassador to Israel, is a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, and most recently has played the role of U.S. special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. He remains an advisor to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on these issues.
Earlier this summer, Indyk stepped down from his negotiator's role when U.S. President Barack Obama decided it was time to declare at least a momentary halt to the spluttering peace process. Given his recent role at the very center of these often fractious exchanges between the Israelis, Palestinians, their neighbors, and Secretary of State John Kerry and the U.S. team, Indyk is as well placed as anyone to identify what's new, what's truly broken, and what still remains possible in the conflict-torn region.
Indyk believes that much has changed but that Israel's leaders and their Palestinian counterparts may be the last to recognize it. He sees a rising generation of Palestinians who simply don't believe a two-state solution is possible and are turning their focus toward winning full rights as Israeli citizens. He sees Israeli leaders who won't acknowledge the irreversible generational shift that is altering U.S.-Israeli relations. Israel, in his view, is also becoming gradually less dependent on the United States and is cultivating a new set of global alliances that may have significant consequences for how it behaves in the years ahead. And there is a growing likelihood that Israel's battle with Hamas may tie its immediate fate more to a once-unimaginable de facto alliance with Arab neighbors seeking to quash militant extremists than to the kind of negotiations, deals, and alliances with which the world is accustomed.
In short, recent events may amount to nothing less than a strategic earthquake. FP Group CEO and Editor David Rothkopf talks to Indyk to get an informed perspective few others can offer.
David Rothkopf: How has what happened in Gaza altered the dynamics of the peace process?
Martin Indyk: I think it's made it a lot more difficult -- as if it wasn't difficult enough already -- because it has deepened the antipathy between the two sides. The Israelis look at Gaza and what's happened there and understandably say, "We cannot allow such a thing to happen in the West Bank." And therefore, today there's a lot more credibility to the argument that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have to stay in the West Bank, otherwise Israelis fear there will be tunnels into Tel Aviv and there will be rockets on Ben Gurion Airport, and Hamas will take over and they'll face a disaster in the "belly" of Israel.
There are security answers to all of that, but I just think the Israeli public attitude is going to be far more concerned about any kind of Israeli military withdrawal from the West Bank. At the same time, the Palestinian attitude will be even stronger that there has to be an end to the occupation, which means a complete Israeli military withdrawal from the West Bank. And the process of negotiating peace does not have any credibility with them unless they have a date certain for when the occupation is going to end, and basically the Israeli attitude will likely be that the occupation is not going to end if that means a complete withdrawal of the IDF. So beyond all of the antagonism that conflict generates this Gaza war may have put another nail in the coffin of the two-state solution.
On the positive side, I think that Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas], the Palestinian leader, has gained some credibility in some quarters in Israel by the way in which he had his security forces cooperate with Israeli security forces during the Gaza crisis and the way in which he prevented a third intifada from breaking out in the West Bank. But whatever he may have gained on the Israeli side, I fear he's lost on the Palestinian side because they see Hamas resisting Israel and they see ISIS [the Islamic State] using violence to establish its Islamic State over in Iraq, and all Abu Mazen has to offer is negotiations as the way to achieve Palestinian statehood. And negotiations don't have any credibility anymore, 20 years after Oslo and with over 300,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and settlement growth continuing and the collapse of the latest effort. So I think that too has also made it more difficult. And now Abu Mazen is responding to his need for "street cred" by threatening to go the international route to unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood, which will generate an Israeli counter-reaction.
And once the dust settles, we may have a politically weakened [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu as well. There was already the problem of distrust between the people and the leadership -- I'm afraid that's just going to be compounded by what's happened [in Gaza].
DR: Give me the scenario under which Netanyahu weakens -- given that recent polls showed considerable support for him and his Gaza policy.
MI: The poll that showed strong support -- 82 percent support -- was conducted before the ground operation. But the sentiment in Israel, the popular sentiment, was to go all the way, to topple Hamas, to take over Gaza, and then somehow hand it over to the Palestinian Authority. People wanted a victory, and "quiet for quiet" is not a victory and probably isn't going to be attainable. If [Israelis] end up with a war of attrition, and every time rockets are fired they have to go into the air raid shelters, I'm afraid that they're going to blame their leadership for not achieving their preferred outcome. [An Israeli TV poll revealed Monday of this week that Netanyahu's support had seen a "dramatic decline," falling to 38 percent, bearing out Indyk's prognostication of a few days earlier.]
The fact that such an outcome was not achievable at any reasonable price, and that Netanyahu acted responsibly in the circumstances, may not be convincing to an Israeli public that's left feeling unsatisfied.
That may be compounded by the declining growth in the Israeli economy, to the point that there's now talk about an Israeli recession. Bear in mind that Israel rode out the 2008 Great Recession without any pain, thanks to very good economic management by Netanyahu and [former Israeli central bank governor] Stanley Fisher. And life has been very good for most Israelis since then -- very little terrorism or violence because of security cooperation with Abu Mazen, despite being surrounded by regional turmoil. Life has been "a beach." But the indications of a slowdown in the economy were already starting before the Gaza War and now might be compounded by the drastic reduction in tourism and other negative factors that slow the economy. So that may create a very different circumstance than has been the case for much of Netanyahu's time in office over the last four years. The combination might lead to disaffection.
DR: That's interesting. So effectively, by having a lingering crisis with periodic rocket attacks and periodic responses from the Israelis, Hamas is actually able to in effect impose economic sanctions on Israel. Is that what you're saying?
MI: It might be. It's too soon to tell but if the chronic violence succeeds in significantly reducing tourism to Israel and foreign investment in Israel, you could be right. Israel has ridden out these kinds of crises in the past and bounced back. It's not at all clear whether Hamas is capable of sustaining a war of attrition, but the trend line is negative.
DR: What do you see as the impact of the Gaza conflict on the U.S.-Israel relationship?
MI: It's had a very negative impact. There's a lot of strain in the relationship now. The personal relationship between the president and the prime minister has been fraught for some time and it's become more complicated by recent events.
What people like to say about the American economy is also true of the U.S.-Israel relationship: The fundamentals are strong. Certainly, congressional support is strong and bipartisan. And in the security relationship and the intelligence relationship, those ties have developed over the years to the point that they are now deep and wide. But there are things happening in the relationship that should give people who care about the relationship -- as I do -- anxiety. There was a Pew poll that showed a generational shift, with younger people being less supportive of Israel. It also showed a political shift, with Democrats being less supportive of Israel, [and] Republicans staying the same in terms of their strong support.
If those trends continue -- and I think they are likely to have been exacerbated by the Gaza crisis, with all the ethical questions that has raised -- then over time Israel may find itself in a very different situation than it's gotten used to. If Israel becomes a partisan issue in American politics, the U.S.-Israel relationship will then be weaker as a result. And if the next generation is less supportive than the current generation -- and I fear that that will be true amongst younger American Jews as well as more broadly -- then that will erode the fundamentals of the relationship over time.
So I think there's a warning bell ringing that people need to pay attention to.
DR: The more this happens, the more it seems the reaction of the Israeli government is to be defiant, to stick its thumb in the eye of the relationship -- the attacks on Kerry; the release of phone call transcripts; the harsh language. The message is sent by Israeli leaders periodically that says, we'll go around the White House, and we'll go to the Congress. I've even had some conversations with Israelis where they say, "Americans don't understand the reality; they're naïve." But we do understand the reality. In fact, it's many Israeli leaders who seem to be shrugging off what you're talking about -- a generational, historical shift that could change the very nature of the most important sort of foundation of Israel's support in the world. How do you account for the apparent disparity?
MI: I think that something's changing on the Israeli side too that all the things that you mentioned reflect, which is that Israel is not anymore the weak and small and dependent state that for so long characterized its position in its relationship with the United States. Now it has a strong army. It has a strong economy. And it has developed relations with world powers that it didn't have before.
Few people noticed that the Indian government came out in support of Israel in this war; social media in China was pro-Israel. It has developed strategic relations with both countries, and with Russia as well, that led Israel to absent itself from the vote of the U.N. General Assembly condemning Russia's annexation of Crimea. I think there's a sense in Israel, particularly on the right, that they can afford to be defiant of the United States. Israelis also sense a potential for a new alignment with Gulf Arab states that didn't exist before that is generated by their common interest in curbing Iran's nuclear program and countering Iran's efforts to dominate the region, opposing if not overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and combating Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, with its stepchild Hamas in Gaza. Israel shares this array of enemies with the Sunni Arab monarchs and the Abdel Fattah al-Sisi regime in Egypt. You can see it in this Gaza crisis quite clearly, where the Saudis and the Egyptians in particular wanted Israel to take down Hamas.
So the combination of all of that leads Israelis to feel more independent of the United States, especially in the context of their sense that the United States is withdrawing from the region and therefore may be less reliable for Israel. These Arab states are also concerned about what they see as an American withdrawal and feel a greater need to cooperate under the table with Israel to help deal with the chaos and threats around them.
So I think that the framing for Israel is different now. Now some politicians on the right feel that standing up to the United States is a cheap way to assert their independence and patriotism. I don't remember a situation before where right-wing Israeli politicians could disparage the United States' leadership and yet gain popularity. And maybe it's because they don't seem to pay any price for it. But I suspect that it's something deeper. There's a sense that Israel has become a power in its own right, and it doesn't need the United States as much. It's a kind of hubris.
I saw this once before, before the 1973 war, when Israelis felt they were the superpower in the region and so didn't have to worry about support from the United States. And it turned on a dime once Egypt and Syria attacked Israel by surprise on Yom Kippur in 1973, and suddenly Israel found itself totally dependent on the United States. So it may be that the bubble of illusion will burst here too and Israeli politicians on the right will come to understand that for all their bravado, the United States is not just Israel's most important friend but in a real crunch its only reliable friend.
DR: Do you feel that the White House was trying to send a message about Gaza? Do you feel the White House is trying to exert more pressure on the Israelis than the Israelis are used to?
MI: No, I don't think so. I think it was in a very specific context of the president being concerned by the loss of civilian life in Gaza, and making that clear both privately and then in public. The statements out of the White House and the State Department were a reaction to the bombing of U.N. compounds and the loss of innocent lives, particularly of children.
President Obama has been very clear from the beginning of his administration -- something for which he gets practically no credit in Israel or amongst Israel's supporters in the United States -- he's been absolutely clear that whatever the differences he may have with the Israeli prime minister, he's not going to touch the security relationship. And he's been very strongly supportive of Israel's security requirements, notwithstanding the real tension in the personal relationship.
So I don't believe that the White House intended now to withhold weapons or missiles in order to get Israel to stop firing. The fact of the matter is the Israelis wanted to stop the firing. It was a question of how to get Hamas to stop firing the rockets.
DR: To what do you attribute the remarkable outbursts against the secretary of state, who's clearly been devoting himself towards advancing a peace process which, at least in theory, is in the interests of the Israelis?
MI: Well, it started with Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon attacking [Kerry] publicly during the peace process, which I attribute to two things. One, the defense minister had a very clear sense of what Israel's security needs are and they do not include withdrawing the Israeli army from the Jordan River, which would have to be addressed in the peace negotiations if there was to be a deal. So I think there was a substantive disagreement, but the lack of respect was truly disturbing, specifically given the importance of American security assistance for the well-being of Israel's defense, for which the defense minister is responsible.
But it got completely out of control during the Gaza crisis, where the secretary was assailed for supposedly betraying Israel because he was trying to work with the prime minister on a cease-fire, and he engaged with Qatar and Turkey to test whether they could influence Hamas to stop firing the rockets. And that criticism came not just from the right but from pundits on the left as well -- Haaretz published three articles by their journalists attacking Kerry. I think that's a product of a particular circumstance in which Israelis felt very much isolated, on their own -- that the world didn't understand them. In that defensive crouch, I think they were waiting for a betrayal by the United States even though the secretary and the president repeatedly supported their right to defend themselves. So they interpreted the secretary's actions as being designed to undermine Israel in favor of Hamas and undermine its burgeoning alignment with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth but that was the perception and, unfortunately, it was a line fed by some unnamed Israeli officials, one of whom described Kerry as launching "a strategic terror attack." That was just outrageous and it enraged the president.
DR: The fact of the matter is what Secretary Kerry had produced in terms of the proposal that he had worked on with Prime Minister Netanyahu was actually better than [what] the Egyptian initiative -- which has just now collapsed in Gaza -- produced. Unfortunately, people don't look at the facts in an emotional situation, and turning on the secretary of state was egregious. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it in my over three decades of involvement in the U.S.-Israel relationship.
DR: And yet it seems that the Israelis can do whatever they want with impunity because the security relationship is off the table for the president. So the defense minister, heavily dependent on U.S. defense assistance, can say whatever he wants about the United States and there's no consequence, to speak of. Or is that -- or are they just testing the boundaries of the relationship and we haven't seen the limit?
MI: You know, I think there's a great deal of tolerance and patience in Washington that comes from a basic commitment to the relationship. I think John Kerry has a perfect voting record on Israel -- 30 years in the Senate, 100 percent support -- that comes not because AIPAC told him to do it but because he has a fundamental understanding of the importance of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.
So, you know, there's a tolerance for this kind of static in verbal exchanges because Secretary Kerry knows it's not true. But somebody likened the United States to a dinosaur -- we're so big and so strong that these kinds of slights don't really make much of a difference, until one day the dinosaur awakes wakes up, and it lifts up its tail, and brings it down again, and whomp! So just because there don't seem to be consequences for this, I think it's very unwise for Israeli right-wing politicians to assume that there will never be a consequence because, when push comes to shove, as much as they may think that the United States needs Israel, the bottom line is: Israel needs the United States more. And that is going to be even more the case going forward than it is today. It's not a good idea to leave the reservoir of goodwill empty.
DR: What does all this mean in terms of the future of the peace process? There are several ways you can interpret what you said. One is, for the near term, given the situation in Gaza, given the composition of the Israeli government, given the composition of the U.S. government, progress seems extremely unlikely, particularly if the Palestinian authority and Abu Mazen are at all weakened -- and Hamas is at all strengthened -- by this.
Another way is to say that perhaps the nature of the interaction will change in some fundamental way. Some other issue will supplant the discussion we've been having, you know, over the course of the past couple of decades regarding the peace process. And I can think of two. One is that the Palestinians proceed with statehood on an independent path and the world supports it -- they set up a country and they say, "We'll deal with these other issues as an independent state."
Or, alternatively, the coalescing alliance among the Israelis, the Egyptians, the Gulf states, the Jordanians, the Russians, the Indians, and others -- even the Chinese -- against the spread of militant Islam takes precedence because of the Islamic State and other things, and that it's that alliance that ends up supporting, pushing back on Hamas, and that we focus for the next couple of years on this issue of militant extremism, and just table the other issues until we get there. And in so doing, if there is some success in this, it could end up strengthening a more moderate series of Sunni voices throughout the region, including the Palestinian Authority.
But maybe there's another still. Are we at a phase shift in all of this?
MI: It's obviously very difficult to tell. I'm impressed in my experience over 35 years of close observation of the U.S.-Israeli relationship of its ability to constantly reinvent itself. Think back to the pre-1973 war situation, the height of Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Middle East, and Israel is on the front line shooting down Soviet pilots in Egyptian MiGs over the Suez Canal. Israel becomes an ally in [the] defense of freedom during the Cold War.
After the '73 war, the United States and Israel became allies in the effort to promote peace and American dominance in the region. And since then they have become our ally in the defense of the West against terrorism. And in each case, the relationship has grown deeper and broader on a strategic level.
And now, as you suggest, there may be a new justification for the relationship, in which the United States, as it withdraws from the Middle East, looks to adopt an offshore balancing approach in which Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia become the pillars of an attempt to construct a new order in the region out of the chaos that's engulfing it. At the moment that doesn't seem to be the way it's developing, because the United States seems to be on the other side of this alignment when it comes to the negotiations with Iran or our tension with Egypt or our reluctance to act in Syria. But I think over time it's probable that that realignment will be something that the United States ends up getting behind and that will provide a new justification for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
And so one can, in a sense, look at the long arc of the relationship and say everything's going to be all right. But where it won't be all right is for Israel itself, because as nice as it is to have strategic alignments, none of that solves Israel's existential problem: What is it going to do about the 2.6 million Palestinians it has responsibility for now? And if it doesn't find a way to resolve that issue, that existential dilemma, if Israel continues to control 2.6 million Palestinians in the West Bank, it's going to have to decide sooner rather than later whether it's a democracy or a Jewish state, but it won't be able to be both.
I witnessed it during these negotiations. The younger generation of Palestinians who have grown up knowing nothing but Israeli occupation don't believe in a two-state solution, don't believe there will ever be an independent Palestinian state. They want equal rights in Israel. And that's where this is heading. And then Israel will find itself in a really serious dilemma. It's only a matter of time. And no matter how strong the relationship is between the United States and Israel, it's not going to help solve that dilemma unless Israelis decide that they want to resolve it.
The United States will do fine without a resolution of this particular conflict. As time goes on and other issues come to dominate our agenda and our interests shift, really the only reason we have left to pursue a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is because of our concern about Israel's future.
It's very hard to make the argument that America now has a strategic interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's just one of many conflicts and it's not the most important and it's not the most difficult. We could leave Israel alone to deal with it as best it can, but that's not what a true friend does. So when the Israeli public decides that they have to find a way to confront their dilemma, then the United States will be there to help, and the U.S.-Israeli relationship will be critically important in terms of giving them a safety net to enable them to make the difficult, gut-wrenching compromises necessary to resolve this dilemma.
DR: But it sounds like what you're saying is that this timeout is necessary because it's time for Israel to do some soul-searching about why it's doing this, what its objectives are, what solutions it wants to pursue. But that's complicated by the fact that it doesn't sound like the Israelis have much of an appetite for soul-searching. We could be in a period of sort of protracted stasis on this front, dealing with other issues until this one ripens.
MI: Well, the president certainly felt it necessary to have a timeout. That was driven by the reality that despite a major investment of time and energy by his secretary of state, mobilization of Pentagon resources to try to address Israel's security concerns in the context of the peace agreement, and a major diplomatic effort by the United States to try to achieve a breakthrough, we weren't able to do it. I think it was Einstein who said the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. With so many other priorities for the secretary of state and the president in a world that is presenting huge challenges for American interests, it doesn't make sense at this point to try again unless something has changed in a way that leads us to believe that success becomes possible.
I think that the change will have to come from Israelis and Palestinians knocking on the president's door and saying, "We're ready, we want to resolve this now," rather than the United States knocking again on their door and insisting that they have to do it.
U.S. Adds Penalties Amid Resistance by Iran to Inspection of Nuclear Work
Multimedia Feature Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program Whether Iran is racing toward nuclear weapon capabilities is one of the most contentious issues challenging the West, including the United States and Israel, which has been involved in a shadow war with the country. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html
By DAVID E. SANGER AUG. 29, 2014
Amid signs that Iran’s military is resisting efforts to open its nuclear program to deeper inspection, the Obama administration on Friday imposed sanctions [ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/231159.htm ] on several Iranian organizations, including one run by the reclusive scientist who is widely believed to direct research on building nuclear weapons.
In a statement, the White House said the sanctions were a continuation of its strategy to crack down on groups suspected of seeking to avoid or violate existing sanctions, even as “the United States remains committed” to striking an accord by late November that includes “a long-term, comprehensive solution that provides confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.”
The sanctions announced Friday were in the works long before those declarations from Tehran, which appeared to be part of the continuing struggle inside the Iranian government over whether a nuclear deal is in the country’s interests.
The most notable of the new penalties is against the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, created three and a half years ago by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh [ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/world/middleeast/top-scientist-from-iran-hinders-talks-with-absence.html ], who is considered the father of Iran’s off-again-on-again nuclear weapons research efforts in the 1990s and through the last decade. He left Malek-Ashtar University of Technology in 2011 to create the new organization, one of several reconfigurations of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure that American and European intelligence agencies believe are part of an effort to hide the size and scope of Iran’s activities.
Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s expertise is central to any Western effort at stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon, or in putting together the components that could be used to assemble a warhead that could fit atop one of Iran’s long-range missiles. As the keeper of Iran’s greatest nuclear secrets, he has long loomed over the talks, but has never attended them. Iranian officials suggested in June that his absence was wise, since he is at the top of Israel’s hit list for Iranian scientists, several of whom have been assassinated in recent years.
Mr. Fakhrizadeh, a former professor, has long been on United Nations’ lists of officials subject to sanctions. But he is believed to travel widely, if secretly. It is not clear why the State Department waited so long to add his new organization to the sanctions list.
But the announcement comes just days after Iran said it would not allow inspectors in Parchin, a site they last visited years ago, and which has been extensively cleansed in recent years, according to satellite photographs that show earth-moving efforts around suspected test sites. A Monday deadline for turning over data to the International Atomic Energy Agency passed, apparently without the transfer of the information, though Iran has said it is working on answering many of the inspectors’ questions. That process is expected to take months or years, long after the deadline for negotiations expires, according to senior officials of the agency.
Iran has also declared that it is speeding ahead with the manufacture of a new generation of centrifuges that could enrich uranium up to 24 times faster than those now installed at the country’s two main enrichment sites.
“Manufacturing and production of new centrifuges is our right,” the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, told Iranian news organizations this week. But the Iranian reports indicated that only mechanical testing of the new centrifuges had been conducted; it is not clear whether that would constitute a violation of the agreement Iran signed last year to freeze nuclear activity. There is no evidence that the new centrifuges have been fed with nuclear fuel.
The announcement may be devised to appease those in Iran who believe the country must press ahead with its research and development, even while negotiating some kind of deal. But Mr. Salehi, in separate comments, has also indicated that Iran is redesigning its nuclear reactor [ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/world/middleeast/iran-altering-reactor-in-bid-for-nuclear-deal.html ] near the town of Arak so that it will produce less plutonium, a change that could slow the inauguration of the new reactor by up to three years, he said.
Nonetheless, the State Department sanctions are also aimed at the Arak reactor. It designated for sanctions Iran’s Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, which it said was helping build the reactor that, “as presently designed, would provide Iran the capability to produce plutonium from the reactor’s spent fuel that could be used in nuclear weapons.”
For the first time, the administration said in public that Iran was at work on a process that seemed aimed at allowing the country to reprocess plutonium, much as North Korea has, to fabricate weapons fuel. But there is no evidence that any of that reprocessing has taken place, and Iran so far is not known to have produced any plutonium — or bought any from North Korea, a pathway American intelligence officials say they are watching for any signs of nuclear-related transactions.
The designations may have little effect on these organizations, which hide their procurement activities well. Moreover, there is debate about whether the Western-led sanctions are having much effect in Iran. During a visit this summer, Payam Mohseni, who runs the Iran Project at the Harvard Kennedy School, concluded that the sanctions had little effect on Iran’s elite, and made many of them richer as they traded in scarce goods.
“I perceived the Iranians to be very confident about their rising power and regional standing, and there was no sense of urgency or need to compromise and resolve the nuclear standoff,” he wrote in a recent post [ http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/iranian-elite-and-nuclear-negotiations-my-reflections-iran ]. “They believed to have gained much from the regional turmoil, including in Syria and recently in Iraq with the rise of ISIS. This perception was particularly striking during my discussions with leading conservative figures of the state.”
US steps up sanctions on Iran over nuclear programme
Saturday, August 30, 2014
MOSCOW: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran hoped to reach a “positive result” in its talks with world powers on its nuclear programme ahead of a November deadline, thanks in part to support from Russia.”
In that short period of time that is left, we hope that we can reach a positive result,” said Zarif, speaking through a translator at a news conference with his Russian counterpart.
Iran and global powers are working to strike a comprehensive agreement by a Nov 24 deadline, under which Iran would curb its nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions that have crippled its economy.
The talks include the United States, Britain, Russia, China, Germany and France together with Iran, a format known as the 6 +1.Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow advocated a solution that would acknowledge Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear activity.
“We expect that the continuing 6+1 talks will allow the conclusion of such a resolution,” he said. Moscow has helped to bridge differences between Iran and other world powers over Tehran’s nuclear activities, which the West fears could be a front to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says it needs nuclear power to generate electricity.
Earlier this month, Russia and Iran announced a big oil-for-food deal, highlighting the problems both countries face in overcoming Western sanctions. Tehran’s economy has been struggling for years, while Russia’s has been hit by sanctions against its finance, oil and defence sectors over the Ukraine crisis.
Few details were disclosed, but sources told Reuters in January that the two sides were negotiating a deal worth $1.5 billion a month that would enable Iran to lift oil exports substantially, Western diplomats say there has been little or no narrowing of differences on the issue of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium, an activity that can have both civilian and military uses.
Meanwhile, the United States imposed new sanctions on Friday on networks linked to Iran, stepping up pressure over Tehran’s controversial nuclear programme.
The Treasury Department said the sanctions target individuals and entities under Iran-related authorities that are involved in Iran’s missile and nuclear programmes, efforts to evade international sanctions and support for terrorism.
The White House’s National Security Council said that despite the additional measures, the US remained committed to working with its partners in seeking an international deal with Tehran over its controversial pursuit of atomic power.
“Just as we announced these measures and continue to enforce pre-existing sanctions on Iran, the United States remains committed to working with our P5+1 partners toward a long-term, comprehensive solution that provides confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful,” said Caitlin Hayden, NSC spokeswoman.
The P5+1 group — Britain, China, France, Germany, the United States, plus Russia — last month extended to November 24 an interim agreement under which Iran suspended part of its nuclear activities in return for a partial lifting of international sanctions, to allow more time to negotiate a final accord.
Tehran denies that it wants to make nuclear weapons and the sides remain split on how much uranium enrichment Iran should be allowed to carry out. The Treasury’s new sanctions targets include shipping and oil companies, banks and an airline.
“Treasury’s action against over 25 entities and individuals — who are involved in expanding Iran’s proliferation program, supporting terrorism in the region, and helping Iran evade US and international sanctions — reflects our continuing determination to take action against anyone, anywhere, who violates our sanctions,” said David Cohen, the Treasury’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
Israel Claims Nearly 1,000 Acres of West Bank Land Near Bethlehem
By ISABEL KERSHNER AUG. 31, 2014
Residents of a Jewish settlement known as Gvaot near Bethlehem, where Israel laid claim to nearly 1,000 acres of West Bank land. Credit Ronen Zvulun/Reuters
JERUSALEM — Israel laid claim on Sunday to nearly 1,000 acres of West Bank land in a Jewish settlement bloc near Bethlehem — a step that could herald significant Israeli construction in the area — defying Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement expansion.
Peace Now .. http://peacenow.org.il/eng/, an Israeli group that opposes the construction of settlements in the West Bank, said that the action on Sunday might be the largest single appropriation of West Bank land in decades and that it could “dramatically change the reality” in the area.
Palestinians aspire to form a state in the lands that Israel conquered in 1967.
Israeli officials said the political directive to expedite a survey of the status of the land came after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed in June .. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/world/middleeast/Israel-missing-teenagers.html .. while hitchhiking in that area. In July, the Israeli authorities arrested a Palestinian who was accused of being the prime mover in the kidnapping and killing of the teenagers. The timing of the land appropriation suggested that it was meant as a kind of compensation for the settlers and punishment for the Palestinians.
The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians, clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.
But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin.
Interested parties have 45 days in which to register objections.
The kidnapping of the teenagers prompted an Israeli military clampdown in the West Bank against Hamas, the Islamic group that dominates Gaza and that Israel said was behind the abductions. The subsequent tensions along the Israel-Gaza border erupted into a 50-day war that ended last week with an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire.
The land appropriation has quickly turned attention back to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and exposed the contradictory visions in the Israeli government that hamper the prospects of any broader Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, condemned the announcement and called for a reversal of the land claim, saying that it would “further deteriorate the situation.”
Though Israel says that it intends to keep the Etzion settlement bloc under any permanent agreement with the Palestinians and that most recent peace plans have involved land swaps, most countries consider Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law. The continued construction has also been a constant source of tension between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Israel and its most important Western allies. Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
A State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the United States urged Israel to reverse its decision, calling it “counterproductive to Israel’s stated goal of a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians.”
The last round of American-brokered peace talks broke down in April. Israel suspended the troubled talks .. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/world/middleeast/israel.html .. after Mr. Abbas forged a reconciliation pact with the Palestinian Authority’s rival, Hamas, which rejects Israel’s right to exist. American officials also said that Israel’s repeated announcements of new settlement construction contributed to the collapse of the talks.
Yair Lapid, Israel’s finance minister, who has spoken out in favor of a new diplomatic process, told reporters on Sunday that he “was not aware of the decision” about the land around Gvaot and had instructed his team to look into it. “We are against any swift changes in the West Bank right now because we need to go back to some kind of process there,” he said.
But Yariv Oppenheimer, general director of Peace Now, said that instead of strengthening the Palestinian moderates, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel “turns his back on the Palestinian Authority and sticks a political knife in the back” of Mr. Abbas, referring to the latest land appropriation.
“Since the 1980s, we don’t remember a declaration of such dimensions,” Mr. Oppenheimer told Israel Radio.
A version of this article appears in print on September 1, 2014, on page A5 of the New York edition with the headline: Israel Claims 1,000 Acres as Its Land in West Bank. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe
Israel orders demolition of village that's received Australian aid money
VIDEO
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 30/07/2015 Reporter: Sophie McNeill
Israel has ordered the demolition of an entire village that is home to hundreds of Palestinians and that's received Australian aid money, prompting international condemnation.
Transcript
SABRA LANE, PRESENTER: Israel has ordered the wholesale demolition of a village that was developed with help from Australian foreign aid funding. The decision is attracting international attention, with the US State Department saying the evictions would be harmful and provocative. Israel claims Susiya, home to hundreds of Palestinians in the occupied territories, is an illegal development because it's never been granted planning permission. But the families who've lived there for decades claim it's next to impossible for them to obtain those permits. Middle East correspondent Sophie McNeill reports.
SOPHIE MCNEILL, REPORTER: Life is harsh in the Palestinian village of Susiya in the West Bank. But for over 300 Palestinians, this ramshackle collection of tents, sheds and small brick buildings is home.
Village elder Abu Mohamad Nawaja says his family first settled in these hills when they fled their villages inside what became Israel after World War II.
ABU MOHAMAD NAWAJA, SUSIYA RESIDENT (voiceover translation): That was the original location of the village Susiya, where I was born and raised for so many years.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: In 1986, they were uprooted again when Israel declared the nearby ancient ruins of a synagogue an archaeological site. Now, these families stand to lose their homes once again.
ABU MOHAMAD NAWAJA (voiceover translation): They will confiscate this farming land for settlers so they can expand their settlements and live comfortably. They want to destroy us, our lives and our kids' lives.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: Like more than 60 per cent of the Palestinian West Bank, Susiya is under the full control of Israeli authorities and they say they never gave planning permission for these structures to be built. A demolition order for the whole of Susiya has been granted.
Today this small-time sheep farmer is hosting the British Consul General and dozens of EU officials.
The village has secured an impressive list of international backers to try to stop Israel from carrying out the demolition.
JOHN KIRBY, US STATE DEPARTMENT: We're closely following developments in the village of Susiya in the West Bank and we strongly urge the Israeli authorities to refrain from carrying out any demolitions in the village.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: Over the years, Australian foreign aid has helped Susiya grow.
Australian Moira O'Leary is the director of ActionAid in the occupied Palestinian territories. For the last four years, the organisation has received funding from the Australian Government to work in Susiya.
MOIRA O'LEARY, ACTIONAID AUSTRALIA: The Palestinians in Area C have very limited access to healthcare, to education, to running water, to electricity and other services like garbage collection. This is their land, it's their home, it's where they want to be, so people live in those conditions because really they don't have a choice.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: To try and improve living conditions here, Australia-funded livelihood programs for women, including buying sheep and beehives. Australia also paid for ActionAid to build two small structures here. One serves as a clinic and the other a kindergarten. They have both been slated for demolition.
MOIRA O'LEARY: We've been regularly in contact with the Australian representative in Ramallah about the situation in Susiya and they are also following closely.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: Over in Jerusalem, we find the man leading the Israeli legal campaign to demolish Susiya and he was born in Sydney. Australian Ari Briggs has been living in Israel for the past 22 years. He's the spokesperson for the Israeli pro-settler organisation Regavim.
ARI BRIGGS, SPOKESPERSON, REGAVIM: I mean, there are standard definitions of what a village is anywhere round the world. What you're looking at when you look at Arab Susiya today is just a collection of tents and encampments that's been set up there and under no-one's definition could it be called a village. The ancient Jewish community of Susiya with its ancient synagogue really ties the Jewish people to the area. I mean, today, it's called the West Bank. We call it Judea. Jews in Judea makes a lot of sense.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: Ari Briggs can't believe the Australian Government is supporting Susiya.
ARI BRIGGS: I have sent information both to the ambassador here in Israel and to the Foreign Ministry back in Australia, information that we used in court, information that stood up in court and we believe that these facts are the facts.
TOM WILSON, AUST. REP., WEST BANK (subtitle translation): How are you? My name is Tom Wilson. I am the Australian representative.
ABU MOHAMAD NAWAJA (subtitle translation): Is this your first visit here?
TOM WILSON (subtitle translation): No, no, it's not the first time.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: Today, the Australian representative to the West Bank, Tom Wilson, is here to express his support for Susiya.
TOM WILSON (subtitle translation): I haven't been to Susiya for so long and I decided to come and say hello. And we heard a lot on the news about the threat of demolition here.
ABU MOHAMAD NAWAJA (subtitle translation): All of the diplomats and representatives who come today, we ask them to pressure Israel to cancel this demolition and to give us permits to build just like the settlements. Of course this is our land, we have registrations. We have the deeds, we have everything.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: The Department of Foreign Affairs told the ABC they are concerned Israeli authorities intend to proceed with demolitions in Susiya and they have raised those concerns with Israel.
And what will Australia do if this village is demolished?
TOM WILSON: I came here today to Susiya to speak with the community leaders and I'm not here to do media interviews, but thank you very much.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: Over the years, the villagers of Susiya have tried to get planning approval for their homes, but it was rejected.
MOIRA O'LEARY: Most Palestinians are not successful in getting planning permits from Israel, so the only alternative is that people have to move or they build - have to build illegally.
SOPHIE MCNEILL: What makes the demolition of Susiya even more harrowing for its inhabitants is that Israeli settlers were given permission to establish their own town just on the next hill, which they also called Susiya. It's complete with electricity, running water and even a pool. But under international law, all Israeli settlements like this one in the Palestinian West Bank are illegal.
The Israeli High Court is due to hear Susiya's appeal against its demolition next week.
MOIRA O'LEARY: The international community in Australia have a lot of influence in being able to support communities like Susiya and to really urge Israel not to continue with demolitions.
SABRA LANE: Sophie McNeill reporting there from Susiya.
Bibi sighed, "“...it was a ‘Let’s blow up the world’ campaign”" .. "ah yes it was, but wasn't it worth it!", as his head lounged lightly on his favorite blue and white and hexagramed pillow case .. "yup, we have come a long way since 2009" he sighed .. Bibi's lids lowered as he bathed in meandering memory .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111892634
Jewish Arsonists Suspected in West Bank Attack That Killed Palestinian Toddler
INSERT
By JODI RUDORENJULY 31, 2015
Hebrew graffiti reading “revenge” was spray-painted on a house that was set alight in an attack in the West Bank village of Duma. Credit Alaa Badarneh/European Pressphoto Agency
JERUSALEM — A Palestinian toddler died in an arson attack in the West Bank early Friday morning, according to the Israeli military, with Jewish extremists suspected because of Hebrew graffiti sprayed nearby. “Revenge!” was written on one wall, next to a Star of David.
Witnesses quoted by Ma’an, a Palestinian news agency, and Israeli news organizations said that Israeli settlers threw firebombs around 2 a.m. at two houses in the northern West Bank village of Duma, setting them ablaze. Palestinian officials identified the dead child, who was 1½ years old, as Ali Saad Dawabasha. They said his parents, Saad and Riham, and his 4-year-old brother Ahmad had been critically wounded and had been transferred to a hospital in Israel.
“The atmosphere here is very grave,” Sakariya Shadeh, a human rights worker from a nearby village who was at the scene within hours, said on Army Radio. “People are angry over what has happened, over what has brought upon this act.”
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, called it a “brutal assassination” and said he held the Israeli government “fully responsible,” labeling the attack “a direct consequence of decades of impunity given by the Israeli government to settler terrorism.”
News Clips By REUTERS 00:26 Toddler Dies in West Bank Arson Attack A total of four relatives were critically injured and were being transferred to a hospital in Israel, officials said. Jewish extremists are suspected as Hebrew graffiti was found sprayed nearby. By REUTERS on Publish Date July 31, 2015. Watch in Times Video »
“This is the consequence of a culture of hate funded and incentivized by the Israeli government and the impunity granted by the international community,” Mr. Erekat said in a statement. “We call upon the international community to end its policy of empty statements and to finally do something to protect Palestinians. Exercising the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their protection and ending the occupation, is an international responsibility.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the attack “an act of terrorism in every respect.”
“The state of Israel takes a strong line against terrorism regardless of who the perpetrators are,” he said in a statement. “I have ordered the security forces to use all means at their disposal to apprehend the murderers and bring them to justice forthwith.”
The fire appeared to be the most severe recent case of what Israelis call “price tag” attacks, often vandalism of mosques or the uprooting of Palestinians’ olive trees, carried out by bands of settlers and other extremists, supposedly in retribution for Palestinian attacks on Jews.
Duma, a village of perhaps 2,000 residents, is very close to Shilo, a settlement near which Malachi Rosenfeld, 26, was fatally shot .. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/world/middleeast/israel-arrests-4-palestinians-in-west-bank-shooting.html .. by Palestinian militants a month ago while he and four friends were driving home from a basketball game. The military announced on July 19 that it had arrested several members of what it called a “Hamas terror cell” accused of Mr. Rosenfeld’s murder and another shooting two days earlier.
Israeli security forces inspected a house that was set ablaze, killing a toddler and wounding his parents and brother. Jewish arsonists were suspected in the attack. Jaafar Ashtiyeh/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Yinon Magal, a member of the Israeli Parliament from the pro-settler Jewish Home faction, was one of many across the political spectrum who criticized the arson attack in absolute terms. Noting that Thursday was the 30th day since Mr. Rosenfeld’s death, a significant mourning milestone for religious Jews, he said, “I suppose there is some sort of message here,” but he added: “This is not a Jewish act, this is not a moral act, this is a terrible act. We do not do such things. This is not our way.”
Musallam Dawabasha, 23, told Ma’an that he saw four settlers running away from the burning homes, one of which was empty, and that residents of the village had chased them toward the Maale Efraim settlement. Other witnesses also cited four men and said they were masked; another said she saw them smash the windows before tossing firebombs inside.
Besides “revenge,” news sites showed pictures of black paint sprayed on a gray wall that read, in Hebrew, “Long live the Messiah king!” with a crown next to it.
Condemnation was swift from all corners. The Israeli military issued a news release around 7 a.m. headlined “Terror attack in the Duma village,” using a term usually reserved for violence against Israelis. Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman, said it was nothing short of “a barbaric act of terrorism” and promised that “a comprehensive investigation is underway.”
Isaac Herzog, leader of Parliament’s center-left Zionist Union faction, said that “it makes you want to sit down and cry out a bitter cry like in a day of mourning.”
“Your soul cries out and cannot find solace — the murder of a child by Jews and the burning of a house is the murder of Abu Khdeir all over again,” Mr. Herzog said in a radio interview, referring to the abduction and killing a year ago of Muhammad Abu Khdeir .. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-muhammad-abu-khdeir.html , 16, in Jerusalem, a searing event for Israel.
“The police must invest greater efforts and means in order to uproot this phenomenon altogether,” he said.
Israel’s hawks can't dodge blame for this day of violence
Jonathan Freedland
Two bloody attacks in 24 hours have laid bare a culture of impunity – and deep internal divisions
Palestinians inspect the West Bank home of the Dawabsha family, set on fire in a suspected attack by Jewish settlers early today. Photograph: Ammar Awad/Reuters
Friday 31 July 2015 14.48 EDT Last modified on Friday 31 July 2015 19.03 EDT
The condemnations are striking but still they ring hollow. Binyamin Netanyahu denounced the arson attack by Jewish settlers on the West Bank home of the Dawabsha family, in which Ali Saad, a baby just 18 months old, was burned to death, as an “act of terrorism in every respect”. Netanyahu was joined by Naftali Bennett, the leader of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party .. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/07/naftali-bennett-interview-jewish-home , which is close to being the political wing of the settlers’ movement. Bennett described the murder as a “horrendous act of terror”. The defence minister .. https://storify.com/ariehkovler/getting-started , the army, they all condemned this heinous crime.
Which is welcome, of course. It’s good that there were no ifs or buts, no attempts to excuse the inexcusable. But still it rings hollow.
The words sound empty partly because, while this act is extreme in its cruelty, it is not a freak event. Talk to the Israeli human right groups that monitor their country’s 48-year occupation of the West Bank and they are clear that the masked men who broke into the Dawabsha family home in the early hours and set it alight committed a crime exceptional only in its consequences. “Violence by settlers against Palestinians is part of the daily routine of the occupation,” Hagai El-Ad, director of the B’tselem .. http://www.btselem.org/ .. organisation, told me.
Indeed, El-Ad says this attack was the eighth time since 2012 that settlers have torched inhabited buildings. There have been dozens of assaults on property, too: mosques, agricultural land, businesses. “In most of these cases, they didn’t find the perpetrators, despite having the best intelligence agencies on the planet.” He is referring to the culture of impunity that has always protected the settlers.
That charge can be directed at past Israeli governments of the centre-left as well as the hawkish right: while the latter actively sponsored the settlement that followed the 1967 war, the former indulged it. But the right’s guilt runs deeper, which is why its tearful words of regret now sound so false.
Take Bennett. Put aside his repeated insistence that there will never be a Palestinian state, thereby crushing the dreams of an independent life for all those living under Israeli rule. Focus only on his conduct this week. Today’s murderous arson attack is assumed to be an act of revenge for the court-ordered .. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/29/netanyahu-approves-west-bank-settlement-construction-demolition .. dismantling on Wednesday of two buildings in the West Bank settlement of Bet El. The buildings were unfinished and empty. Israel’s supreme court ruled them illegal and ordered the army to demolish them. The settlers raged at the decision, demonstrating violently against the soldiers and police who were there to enforce it. And guess who stood on a roof at Bet El .. http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.668764 , egging the protesters on, stirring them to ever greater heights of fury? Why, it was Naftali Bennett.
-- "Israeli hawks pump ever more air into the ultra-nationalist balloon – only to feign shock when it explodes" --
Netanyahu himself is not much better. You don’t have to recall his own disavowal of Palestinian statehood .. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/inyamin-netanyahu-israel-election .. and a two-state solution on the eve of March’s election, or his racist warning that Arab citizens of Israel were heading to the polls “in droves”. Look only at his actions in recent days. Stung by the protests at Bet El, he announced construction of another 300 units in Bet El and 504 in East Jerusalem. In other words, he did not punish the settlers for their lawless behaviour: he rewarded it.
There is a pattern here. The hawks of the Israeli right pump ever more air into the ultra-nationalist balloon – only to feign shock when it explodes. A small, but telling example: yesterday an ultra-orthodox Jewish fanatic went on the rampage at the Jerusalem Pride march .. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/30/up-to-six-stabbed-at-gay-pride-march-in-jerusalem , stabbing wildly at anyone his knife could reach. He injured six, one critically. Among those who condemned his actions was Jewish Home Knesset member Bezalel Smotrich. Yet Smotrich calls himself a “proud homophobe .. http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-home-hopeful-boasts-of-being-proud-homophobe/ .. ”: in 2006 he helped organise “the beast parade” which saw demonstrators mock Pride by walking through Jerusalem with donkeys and goats, as if to equate homosexuality with bestiality.
The prime example of turning on the tap – only to be appalled by the flood – is Netanyahu himself. Twenty years ago he stirred up crowds livid at then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin’s apparent concessions to the Palestinians. They waved placards depicting Rabin as a Palestinian terrorist, even as an SS officer – but Netanyahu said nothing. They carried a mocked-up coffin of Rabin and still Netanyahu said nothing. But when a far rightist assassinated Rabin, Netanyahu was of course among the first to be shocked, shocked, by such wickedness.
It’s true too that each “price tag” attack like yesterday’s – designed to show that even the slightest brake on the settlement venture will come at a price – helps entrench the position that territorial compromise is impossible, that the evacuation of settlements will trigger civil war. That is a conclusion that can only boost support for the Bibi-Bennett hostility to a two-state accord with the Palestinians. And yet, for all that, it would be wrong to see the Israeli right as a monolith – and even more wrong to see Israel ..http://www.theguardian.com/world/israel .. itself that way. There are distinctions and they matter. This week’s men of violence illustrate them.
The graffiti left by the murderers of baby Ali Saad offered a clue. “Long live the messiah,” said one. I’ve seen slogans like that before, in the radical settler enclave .. http://www.jonathanfreedland.com/an-exclusive-corner-of-hebron/ .. of Hebron: they point to a strand of settler extremism that denounces the actual state of Israel, and especially its army, as godless institutions of secular democracy, demanding in their place the creation of a “Judean kingdom”. To them, Netanyahu is a traitor and apostate.
Similarly, the would-be assassin of the Pride rally, Yishai Schlissel, told the Jerusalem court where he appeared today that he did not recognise its authority because it “does not follow the rules of the holy Torah .. http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.668894 ” (as if he does). That suggests he belongs to the strand of anti-Zionist ultra-orthodoxy that regards the modern, secular state of Israel as a blasphemous pre-empting of the divine plan for the Jews.
Back when we used to speak of the “Middle East peace process” there was an assumption, contained in that very phrase, that if only Palestinians and Israelis could reach an accord, peace would come to the entire region (C'mon, seriously Jonathan, on that one, who are you kidding there?] . Now we surely know that even if there were such a pact, it would not end the killing in Yemen, the slaughter in Syria or the carnage in Iraq. Even if Palestinians and Israelis embraced, Isis would keep on beheading those it deems the wrong kind of Muslim.
But something else is true too. (Yeah, always has been] If the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were solved tomorrow, there are no guarantees it would bring tranquillity to Israel or indeed to the divided Palestinians. It might simply unleash the internal conflicts that the external clash has bottled up and contained for so long.
As the Dawabsha family mourns, and as Israelis and Palestinians hold their breath, trembling at the prospect of yet another dread cycle of retaliation and escalation, it is worth remembering that this conflict involves enmity piled upon enmity, hatred upon hatred, within and without – making it harder to solve with each passing day.
This headline of this piece was amended on 31 July 2015 because the original did not accurately reflect the content of the article.
South Africa apartheid could not last. Same for Israel. Any hint of any concept, of any idea at all, for sure, of anyone claiming to be 'God's children' is dangerously damningly, and seriously dallying, delusional thought.
Father of Palestinian Toddler Killed in West Bank Arson Attack Dies in Hospital
By RAMI NAZZAL and ISABEL KERSHNERAUG. 8, 2015
A Palestinian man mourned next to the body of Ali Dawabsheh, an 18-month-old boy who died in a July 31 arson attack in the West Bank. The boy's father, Saad Dawabsheh, 32, died on Saturday from wounds sustained in the attack. Credit Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press
The man, Saad Dawabsheh, 32, died in the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba eight days after his 18-month-old son, Ali, was killed in the fire that consumed the small family home.
Dr. Motti Klein, who runs the intensive care unit at the hospital, said in a statement that Mr. Dawabsheh had arrived in critical condition, with severe burns covering 80 percent of his body.
His badly burned wife, Riham, 27, and their other son, Ahmad, 4, remained in another Israeli hospital on Saturday with life-threatening injuries, though doctors said that Ahmad’s condition had improved somewhat and that he was now able to communicate with those around him.
“May God punish those who did this to my family,” said Mr. Dawabsheh’s mother, Rihab, 65, as she sat surrounded by women before the funeral. The night before, she said, she had dreamed that she was celebrating her son’s recovery and return home.
Jewish extremists are suspected .. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/world/middleeast/west-bank-arson-palestinian-toddler.html .. in the July 31 firebombing, which was described as a terrorist attack by both Israeli and Palestinian politicians. Hebrew graffiti, including the word “Revenge!” next to a Star of David, had been sprayed on a nearby wall. The episode, perhaps the most shocking in a summer that has been marked by repeated violence, prompted an outpouring of emotion and condemnation on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide and around the world.
During the funeral procession, youths waved the flags of rival Palestinian political factions in a sign of unity and defiance against the Israeli occupation.
Relatives of Mr. Dawabsheh and residents of Duma, where many share the same last name, described him as a family man who had no enemies. They said that since the attack, residents had been guarding the village at night, fearing a repeat attack by Jewish settlers.
“Now they have started a war with us,” said Ibrahim Dawabsheh, 17, who is out of school and unemployed, adding, “Are we going to live like this for the rest of our lives?”
Some of the villagers spoke of revenge, and Israelis were already pointing to a rise in tensions. In recent days, an Israeli woman was injured when her car was firebombed in East Jerusalem, and three Israeli soldiers were injured when a Palestinian driver plowed into them in the West Bank in what Israeli officials said was a deliberate attack.
But Nasser Dawabsheh, the brother of the man who died Saturday, said he hoped that all Palestinians would be able to live in peace, and that the perpetrators would be caught. “I pray that justice will prevail,” he said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel issued a statement at the end of the Sabbath expressing “deep sorrow” over the death of Mr. Dawabsheh, adding, “We will not countenance terrorism of any kind.”
Rami Nazzal reported from Duma, and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem. Diaa Hadid contributed reporting from Ramat Hasharon, Israel.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
