Coteret

Hebron crisis

Ben Caspit, Maariv, January 8 2010 [page 2]

Israel is considering the option of not extending the mandate of the TIPH multi-national mission, which has been stationed in Hebron since the interim agreement signed between Israel and the PLO as part of the Hebron protocol in 1997.

The mandate of the force, which is composed of the representatives of six countries, is renewed every six months, and is due to be renewed at the end of the month.  Now, Israel is considering (and not for the first time) the possibility of not extending its mandate.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon visited Hebron yesterday, at the direct instructions of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in order to examine the situation on the ground.  Ayalon confirmed yesterday that the possibility of not extending the mandate was indeed being examined, and appeared realistic.  “They are exceeding their mandate,” Ayalon told Ma’ariv.  “They report cases of harassment against Palestinians, and do not deal with cases of opposite harassment.”

In addition, Israeli sources say that the extension of the mandate is supposed to be carried out in a festive ceremony with the attendance of representatives from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and TIPH, but the PA has been refusing to hold this ceremony in the past years.  “The fact that this force frequently complains against IDF soldiers and serves as infrastructure for many representatives of international organizations who focus on filing complaints against Israel and the IDF, plays a role in the Israeli idea of stopping the mandate,” an informed security source said yesterday to Ma’ariv.

Stopping the mandate of the multi-national force in Hebron could spark an international furor.  The timing, in the course of a considerable international effort to renew the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, appears particularly problematic.  In addition, there is the issue of the force’s makeup: Its members are soldiers from Norway, Sweden, Turkey, Denmark, Italy and Switzerland.  With the exception of Italy, all these countries have hit a low of one kind or another in their relations with Israel.  It is believed that Foreign Minister Lieberman and his deputy Ayalon view the non-extension of the force’s mandate as an opportunity to harm Sweden and Norway (a Norwegian army general heads the force), which are defined as the two European countries most extreme in their negative attitude towards Israel at the present time.  The Turkish issue is even more sensitive, and here too Lieberman has recently said that Turkey must not return to the position of mediator between Israel and Syria.

A classified Foreign Ministry document, which was recently prepared on the performance of the multi-national force, levels harsh criticism at its activity: “Due to the tendentious mandate of the force (protecting the Palestinians), it is clear that the reports (that it issues—BC) deal mainly with criticizing Israel… a certain tension is revealed at times between the Israeli government and the force’s activity, in light of our position that the force sometimes exceeds its mandate, among other things by demands to investigate incidents that took place and/or demands that Israel account for its actions to the donor states, in addition to extensive public relations activity—for example, by means of an impressive web site, which offers forms for Palestinian residents to file complaints against the Israeli authorities.”

The report states further: “The recent assessment reached by the Foreign Ministry following staff work done on the matter by professional echelons is that Israel has no interest as such in the continued activity of the force, but diplomatic circumstances do not enable the termination of its activity and/or non-renewal of its mandate.  However, it was agreed that the issue of the force’s continued activity should be examined, within the framework of possibilities that could be raised with the Palestinians in a future dialogue on Hebron.”

Yesterday (January 6 2010) Yediot reported that Rahm Emanuel had bluntly told the Israeli Consul General in Los Angeles, Yaki Dayan, that the US administration was “tired” of the government of Israel because of its foot-dragging on Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic issues.

The report caused a stir in the blogosphere. Politico’s Ben Smith relayed an off-record administration dismissal of the report; Jeffrey Goldberg got an on-record denial by a White House spokesman; Andrew Sullivan used the opportunity to express similar sentiments about Israel, even calling for an imposed solution and questioning the entire US-Israeli alliance; Shmuel Rosner attacked Emanuel on a wide front, but also stung Israelis for their habit of leaking diplomatic cables.

This morning (January 7 2010,) Yediot publishes other parts of the cable, giving the story a more “positive” spin: Obama will visit Israel by mid 2010 (full text after the cut.)

Here’s a little bit of background to help readers understand the architecture of this type of flap. Yediot is a sensationalist tabloid. The reporter, Itamar Eichner, has made a career leaking cables he gets from senior from senior Foreign Ministry officials. The motivation for the leak is often prosaic — Eichner demands a story and the official gives him the juiciest cable he has in order to maintain the relationship.

Educated speculation: Eichner filed a longer story on Tuesday night. The night editor cut it down significantly, leaving only the text supporting the most sensational headline he could come up with (“tired of you.”) Because of the stir, the leaker felt some heat and shifted it to Eichner, resulting in this morning’s follow-up.

Rahm Emanuel: Obama will come to Israel by mid-year

Itamar Eichner, Yediot, January 7 2010 [page 5]

During a meeting with Israel’s consul general in Los Angeles, Yaki Dayan, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that US President Barack Obama intends to visit Israel during the first half of 2010.

Rahm and his boss

The meeting took place on the fringes of an event that was held several weeks ago  in Los Angeles in honor of Congressman Howard Berman (D). Dayan gave a classified report on the content of the conversation, the main points of which were reported for the first time yesterday in Yedioth Ahronoth.

During the conversation, Emanuel, who is very close to President Obama, expressed the despair of the American administration over the endless dealings with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Among other things, he told Dayan: The United States is fed up with the Israelis, who always adopt the right ideas five months too late (evidently referring to the construction freeze in the settlements—I.E.), and so they become ineffective. We’re also fed up with the Palestinians, who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If there’s no progress, the US will reduce its involvement in the conflict. We also have other subjects to deal with.

When Emanuel and Dayan also spoke about Ehud Olmert’s political plan, Emanuel said something very interesting: “Both sides rejected that plan. Abu Mazen rejected the plan, but Israel did not accept it either.” Emanuel was referring to the fact that Tzippi Livni and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejected Olmert’s ideas. Read more…

More opinion and analysis by Ofer Shelah here.

Harta Barta

Op-ed, Ofer Shelah, Maariv, January 5 2010

What is left of the year 2000, the last year in which there were negotiations with the Palestinians? The prevailing narrative of “we have no partner;” the picture of Ehud Barak and Arafat grappling at the entrance to a cabin in Camp David and one casual remark by Mohammed Dahlan who was caught by reporters on his way to the bathroom in Taba. What’s going on? the reporters asked, and Dahlan summarized with an expression that every Israeli knows: harta barta [drivel, empty talk].

Harta barta. That, as one man, is what all the state leaders whose word has any weight on the negotiations with the Palestinians at this time think. Some of them say it openly: Ehud Barak has long since said “no peace before 2028,” Bugi Yaalon said “not in our generation,” and for Avigdor Lieberman, even those dates are too soon. The prime minister talks about an “economic peace” that will be built from the bottom up, in other words, Israel will help improve the private situation of Palestinians, but not realize their national aspirations.

Harta barta. That’s also what the security organizations directors will say when they are called into the meeting rooms, and not in order to help the decision-makers—in the last 20 years Rabin, Barak and Sharon decided on these matters contrary to the views of the security organization directors—but in order to give  ostensibly professional cover to the leaders’ decision. There is no major voice in IDF Intelligence, in the GSS or in the Mossad who believes in the possibility of reaching a stable arrangement with the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. Naturally, like in the aforementioned cases, if a leader is found who decides the opposite, the professionals will fall into line, as they did in the case of Oslo and disengagement.

Harta barta. That’s what the Israeli and Palestinian peoples think. Ever since everything blew up in the summer of 2000, the situation in public opinion polls has remained steady.  A majority of about two thirds of Israelis and of Palestinians knows what the final arrangement will be like, if it ever happens: a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank with symbolic land swaps, the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem with a symbolic division of sovereignty in the holy places, a Palestinian concession on the practical return of refugees without a declaration about giving up the right of return. The same majority supports such an arrangement if it puts an end to the conflict—and the exact same majority does not believe that this will happen in its lifetime. In the last poll released by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, with the participation of Israeli figures, 66% of Israelis and 66% of Palestinians said that this would not happen in the next five years.

So what’s all this fuss about imminent negotiations with the Palestinians, the prime minister’s talk about decisions about to be made, the leaks about what Netanyahu agreed to and what he didn’t? Harta barta. In Washington sits an administration that began its term with the notion that it could compel both sides, mainly the Israeli side, to return to negotiations. Netanyahu’s approach to the matter was to wait until Obama got over this. And then, inevitably, he did: the American president has other problems, he is working on an historic achievement on a health reform, while veterans of previous negotiations and columnists advise him to remove his hands from the bleeding mud of the Middle East. The day is not far off when he too will be persuaded of Dahlan’s truth.

When any of the government leaders are asked why, therefore, make a pretense of talking, they shrug their shoulders and talk about tactics. “The process must be maintained,” and “we have to provide hope,” mainly to look good in Washington. About the assumption that ultimately the ongoing frustration will lead to another round of violence, they respond with a shrug of the shoulders: in any case, among the government and the public on both sides, the majority views events in terms of an almost eternal conflict, and all that is left is to control when it blows up. And only the people who die in the next five years and afterwards, it is only for them that this whole business is more than harta barta.

The Yediot report expands on yesterday’s (January 5 2010,) which revealed that a senior IDF delegation to UK was cancelled at last minute for fear of arrests. At bottom is a Maariv news item on the attempt by British Attorney General Patricia Scotland, currently visiting Israel, to placate the local elite.

Note that Colonel Virob is also in hot water for testifying that the beating of Palestinian detainees in the West Bank constituted normative behavior in the IDF. A Haaretz report from February 2009 describes Brigadier Halevi as a “brilliant officer, who also excelled in combat [who] categorically refuses to open the Pandora’s box of moral debate [regarding the Gaza war.]“

Halevy and Weirob are among officers who didn’t go to England

Yossi Yehoshua and Itamar Eichner, Yediot, January 6 2010 [page 9]

Itai Virob

Yedioth Ahronoth has learned that Brig. Gen. Herzi Halevi and Colonel Itai Virob were part of the military delegation that was supposed to leave for Britain last week.

Herzi Halevi

As reported yesterday, Israel canceled the planned visit by the military delegation to the UK after British authorities said they could not guarantee that the IDF officers would not be arrested. Brig. Gen. Halevi was the commander of the Paratroopers Brigade during Operation Cast Lead, and Colonel Virob, formerly the commander of the Kfir Brigade, also entered the Gaza Strip in the course of that operation with one of his battalions. Meanwhile, the British attorney general, who is visiting Israel at present, said yesterday that the UK would take urgent action to change the policy that allowed for arrest warrants to be issued against high-ranking Israeli officials [More on UK AG's statement in Maariv item below].

British Attorney General: We’ll change the system

Eli Bardenstein, Maariv, January 6 2010 [page 6]

Patricia Scotland

British Attorney General Patricia Scotland said last night in a lecture at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: The government understands the urgent need to change the system in order to prevent lawsuits against Israelis, and is determined to enable Israeli leaders to travel freely to Britain.

Among the people came to hear Scotland were Supreme Court President Judge Dorit Beinish, Supreme Court Judge Edna Arbel and British Ambassador to Israel Tom Phillips.

The British attorney general said that there should not be a safe haven for war criminals in any democratic country, but it should also be ensured that the law would not be used for the sake of one political campaign or another.  Scotland emphasized that until the law was amended, the policy according to which judges could issue arrest warrants against senior Israeli figures would not change.

Earlier in the day, Scotland met with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman.

Cross-posted from Promised Land Blog.

Last Saturday I met an Israeli-American friend who came for a short visit from his studies in Europe. We talked some politics, and finally came to an issue which always puzzles me: the fact that American Jews are unwilling — almost unable — to criticize Israel, both in public and in private, and even when Israeli policies contradict their own beliefs. My friend noted that if some of the articles on the Israeli media – and not even the most radical ones – were to be printed in the US and signed by non-Jews, they would be considered by most Jewish readers like an example of dangerous Israel-bashing, sometimes even anti-Semitism.

I’ve became more aware of this issue myself since I started writing this blog. Things I say or write which are well within the public debate in Israel are sometimes viewed as outrageous by American Jewish readers; at the same time, events which would make the same readers furious if they happened in the US – for example, the Israeli municipality which tried to prevent Arabs from dating Jewish girls – are met with indifference.

Naturally, I’m generalizing here. Between millions of Jews you can obviously find all kinds of voices – and this is part of the reason I hesitated before writing this post – but I think one can recognize some sort of mainstream opinion within the Jewish community, which both echoes the official Israeli policies, regardless of the identity of the government in Jerusalem, and at the same time, turns a blind eye on events which might distort the image of Israel which this community holds. And this is something which is hard to understand.

———————–

All known data indicates that the vast majority of US Jews support the democratic party, and many consider themselves as liberals (Barack Obama captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote). Yet except for a group of well known activists, you can hardly hear these people criticize Israel, which is not exactly a picture-perfect liberal democracy.

I am not talking here about the old Jewish establishment or about AIPAC. AIPAC are professional politicians. Their status is based on their connections to the Israeli governments, and their ability to promote Israeli interests in Washington. Breaking up with Israel — even just criticizing Israeli politics — will not just hurt their status, it will simply leave them unemployed. Expecting AIPAC or other Jewish leaders with good ties in Jerusalem to declare that, for example, Israel should lift the siege on Gaza, is like asking an insurance lobbyist to speak in the name of the public option.

Naturally, I don’t expect anything from Jewish neo-cons either. These people like Netanyahu, they supported George Bush, and they will go on speaking about culture wars and Islamo-Facists versus Judeo-Christians even on the day Mahmoud Haniya converts to Zionism. You can agree or disagree with them, but at least their views are consistent.

With the Liberals it’s quiet a different story. It’s obvious they care much about Israel, and some of them are very passionate about politics and extremely well-informed about what’s going on here, but from time to time, I get the feeling they hold back some of their views.

I don’t think many liberals, if they really are ones, can accept the siege on Gaza. Even if they think that Hamas is to blame for the current state of affairs, surly they don’t support collective punishment against 1.5 million people, do they? What would they say if the US was to seal the areas in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan where the insurgents are hiding, not letting even basic supply in or out, preventing civilians from growing food or working, and practically leaving the entire population on the brink of starvation? I presume many Americans will oppose such policies. Read more…

UPDATE – January 6 2010: Shmuel Rosner stirs the pot and Ben Smith relays an administration dismissal.

Rahm Emanuel: US administration is tired of you

Itamar Eichner, Yediot, January 6 2010 [page 6]

Rahm Emanuel

The US administration is tired of you, the Israelis and Palestinians. You’re wasting precious time and are missing an opportunity to make peace. There is going to be a stage in which we’re simply going to give up on this endless conflict and leave you alone—said recently White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to Yaki Dayan, the Israeli consul general in Los Angeles. The meeting between the two men occurred a number of weeks ago on the sidelines of a Jewish community event that was held in Los Angeles. A local Jewish leader introduced Emanuel to Dayan, and the two held a brief conversation about the peace process. Dayan reported the content of that conversation in a secret telegram to a very small number of top officials in Jerusalem.

According to the report, the US administration is frustrated by the impasse and by its inability to bring about a resumption of the negotiations.

Emanuel’s message to Dayan was simple: the Americans are tired and frustrated. They have gone out of their way to bring the parties to the negotiating table, but the parties are doing their utmost to refrain from talking with one another. You are missing an opportunity to make peace. You have to come to your senses and return to the negotiating table. We aren’t going to hold the talks for you. There is going to be a moment in which the United States will say ‘enough,’ and will disengage so as to address other problems around the world and at home.

A spokesman in the Prime Minister’s Bureau said last night in response: “We do not normally divulge the content of diplomatic messages. Regarding the matter at hand, the statements that are the subject of your question did not contain any criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu. The facts on the ground then and today as well prove the exact opposite: the Prime Minister’s Bureau is working in full coordination with the US administration in order to set the peace process in motion together, and this has been done while preserving mutual good working relations.”

The shock and indignation expressed in the article indicates just how difficult it is for the Israeli elite to come to terms with this new reality. This may help explain why there appears to be no coordinated strategy, with a variety of initiatives acting at cross puposes:

1. Israel announces it will set up a limited internal investigation in order to stem the “political and economic tsunami” caused by the Goldstone report.
2. A European pro-Israel group attempts to use the Goldstone report to indict Hamas leaders in Belgium.
3. Jewish groups in the US support a suspected Somali human rights violator for fear of Israeli war crimes culpability (completely oblivious to the moral price they are exacting from all Jews.)

Officers’ trip to UK canceled due to concern of arrest

Itamar Eichner, Yediot, January 5 2009

At the last minute, Israel canceled a work visit of Israeli officers to the UK due to concern that arrest warrants would be issued against them.

The Israeli delegation, comprised of officers ranking colonel, lieutenant colonel and major, was invited by the British army to examine military cooperation. Due to concern that warrants of arrest would be issued, Israeli officials contacted British government officials in advance and demanded that they guarantee that the officers would not be arrested. This is after two weeks ago, a warrant of arrest was issued against Opposition Chairwoman Tzippi Livni and earlier there were attempts to have a similar warrant issued against Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

To the great astonishment of the Israelis—the British announced last week that they could not guarantee that the officers would not be arrested. Consultations were held in Israel among the top echelons and it was decided: under the present circumstances, no risk should be taken, and the visit was canceled. Read more…

Michael Oren

UPDATE: January 5 2010 — Haaretz’s Akiva Eldar posits similar arguments.

In the run-up to his appointment as ambassador, Michael Oren, with the help of the mainstream US media, pulled off an amazing image makeover — the movement neoconservative became a pragmatic centrist. The Israeli media, however, is not playing ball.

On December 22 Haaretz revealed that he  had gone off the reservation as the American Jewish Committee’s representative in Jerusalem in the nineties — suggesting that the IDF Chief of Staff replace Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Last Tuesday (December 29 2009,) Oren gave an interview to Razi Barkai at IDF Radio (listen to it here in Hebrew.) Barkai was surprisingly well informed and pressed Oren on his treatment of J Street (translated transcript of relevant excerpt after the cut.)

Oren, under pressure, tried to use the Goldstone Report to differentiate J Street from Americans for Peace Now (APN), with whom he has deigned to meet. His implication is that J Street is beyond the pale because it did not denounce the report.

The facts do not back Oren’s argument. Both organizations have not denounced Goldstone. However, between the two, APN has clearly taken a markedly softer tone regarding the report. In fact, when the House of Representatives tabled resolution 867, condemning the Goldstone report, APN called on Congressmen to oppose it, while J Street only asked for its amendment. J Street is also closer to Oren’s and Israel’s position on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (IRPSA), which it supports. APN, on the other hand, urged Congress members to oppose it. Indeed, last Friday (January 1 2009,) APN’s Lara Friedman published an blog post criticizing Oren for trying to force Obama’s hand on the issue.

Razi Barkai

Clearly, J Street is closer to the Israeli position on two issues that Oren deems crucial. Why then, as reported in the Forward, did he attack the organization for “fooling around with lives of seven million [Israeli] people,” while stating in this interview that outreach to APN is “very important”?

One option is that Oren is grievously misinformed. This was also the excuse for another recent incident casting doubt on his credibility.

Last November, a woman, Nofrat Frenkel, was detained by Israeli police and interrogated for 2.5 hours after she wore a tallit and carried a Torah in the women’s section of the main plaza of the Wailing Wall. When questioned, Oren categorically denied the report.

When asked about the incident at the annual meeting of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in December, Oren dismissed these accounts as “widely misreported,” saying she was simply “led away” from the area.

Such a blatant misrepresentation of facts could not be sustained for long, however. On December 22 2009, the Israeli Embassy issued a statement backtracking on the denial and shifting blame to the Foreign Ministry.

Oren responded to a question based upon information he had requested and received from Israel, which was later proven to be incomplete. The ambassador has since demanded a full and complete report on the incident.

Is it also the Foreign Ministry’s fault that the ambassador is misinformed on the respective positions of J Street and APN on Goldstone and IRPSA? That would be a stretch. It is Oren‘s responsibility to report on these to Jerusalem. He could shift blame to a staffer, but that would reflect badly on his performance regarding an issue at the core of his job description. More likely, as Barkai posits in the IDF Radio interview, Oren has “decided to go with AIPAC against J Street.” This is, as Leonard Fein points out, a breach of his post-appointment promise to “reach out to different groups, Jewish and non-Jewish, that have not felt a close attachment to the embassy in the past.”

Bill Kristol

That brings us to the second option: Faced with such a glaring gap, Oren makes up the facts as required. However, as with NGO Monitor’s Gerald Steinberg, one is struck by Oren’s hubris. It’s hard to believe that Oren does not realize that this type of behavior will be quickly exposed, given today’s reality of instant internet-based fact-checking.

This carelessness could be the result of a situation where Oren’s fundamental political training tends to overpower his common sense. Michael Oren is a product of the Shalem Center, Sheldon Adelson‘s neoconservative institute in Jerusalem, which he joined in 1998 as part of its initial group of senior fellows.

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald points out that the [Leo] Straussian “noble lie” is a tenet of neoconservative thought. He quotes Prof. Shadia Drury:

[Strauss] therefore taught that those in power must invent noble lies and pious frauds to keep the people in the stupor for which they are supremely fit. . . . Like the Grand Inquisitor, he thought that it was better for human beings to be victims of this noble delusion than to “wallow” in the “sordid” truth. And like the Grand Inquisitor, Strauss thought that the superior few should shoulder the burden of truth and in so doing, protect humanity from the “terror and hopelessness of life.

In this context, Greenwald specifically describes William (Bill) Kristol as a “Straussian clone.” It is probably no coincidence that Kristol is a member of the Shalem Foundation’s board.

Both options are worrying. The Israeli ambassador has a credibility problem, either the result of incompetence or, more likely, his ideological bent.

The confrontational Oren that has emerged in the little amount of time since his appointment may have bigger problems than his credibility, however. Oren’s dishonesty seems to be the result of a need to defend positions that do not resonate well in the beltway, among most American Jews and in Israel. It is hard to believe that these positions originate in Jerusalem. Increasingly, they appear to be closely coordinated with two groups disenfranchised under the Obama administration – the old Jewish-American establishment and the pundits at the Weekly Standard and the National Review. If this is case, Michael Oren, who disingenuously called J Street a “unique” problem, is becoming one himself, for both Israel and the US.

Interview with Michael Oren

IDF Radio, December 29 2009 10:07

[...]

Razi Barkai: because you are everyone’s ambassador in the US, not only the Israeli right’s.

Michael Oren: yes, that is how I see it.

Razi Barkai: so why did you avoid the very important J Street conference? Read more…