Taking Stock of U.S. Policy toward Israel

This is an excellent speech by David Harris, Executive Director of AJA, which I believe is worth reading:

Taking Stock of U.S. Policy toward Israel

David Harris
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee (AJC)
July 23, 2009

The following is adapted from my remarks to a meeting of the U.S. Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, attended by about 20 Democratic Senators, on Capitol Hill on July 22.

Thank you for the privilege of speaking once again before this distinguished group.

I represent AJC – the American Jewish Committee. We have been active for decades in supporting Israel and advancing peace. I would describe our outlook in the words of President John F. Kennedy, who said, "I’m an idealist without illusions."

We welcome President Obama’s groundbreaking speech in Cairo on June 4th.

We applaud his statement that the bonds between America and Israel are "unbreakable."

We praise his principled condemnation of the Holocaust denial that is all too common in Arab and Muslim societies.

We fully embrace his commitment to peace – peace among Israel, its Palestinian neighbors, and the larger Arab world.

And we share his vision of a region where "children grow up without fear."

At the same time, I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t tell this audience that we have some specific areas of concern. This is a caring critique from a friend, and we hope that these issues can quickly be put behind us.

Let me cite three.

First, in his Cairo speech, the President implied that the Holocaust was the primary reason forIsrael’s creation. That is unfortunate – and factually incorrect.

Israel was born out of an ancient vision unique in the annals of history. In the words of its Declaration of Independence, Israel "was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books."

This was understood by President Harry Truman, who defied the advice of his State Department to recognize the re-establishment of Israel in 1948.

His favorite Psalm, according to presidential historian Michael Beschloss, was Number 137: "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."

Why is this important now? Because the Arab world has long challenged Israel’s legitimacy by arguing that it is a Western implant in the Middle East, created to appease the conscience of aEurope with Jewish blood on its hands.

President Clinton encountered this view when his valiant efforts to make peace were rebuffed, as Yasser Arafat outrageously denied the historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem.

Indeed, more than any other issue, this gets to the root of the conflict. The United States must take every opportunity to reinforce Israel’s rightful place in the region.

Second, the President juxtaposed the Palestinian condition with that of black Americans and other suffering people "from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia."

Whatever its intent, this seemed to create a regrettable equivalence.

I would not for a minute deny that Palestinians have suffered. I have visited the West Bank andGaza and know that the lives of many Palestinians have not been easy.

Yet I also know that the Palestinian condition is, above all, self-inflicted. That is to say that the Palestinian people have been ill-served by their own leaders.

Where are the Martin Luther King and John Lewis, the Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa, and the Mahatma Gandhi of the Palestinian people – individuals of visionary greatness and deep commitment to non-violence?

According to a senior British official, Palestinians are the world’s largest per capita recipients of foreign aid. Yet corruption and mismanagement have siphoned off too much from the intended recipients.

To suggest that Palestinians are the modern-day version of those who endured inescapable oppression is to give them, and especially their leaders, a free pass. Those leaders should be held accountable for failing to move Palestinian society from victimization to responsibility.

On this front, there are glimmers of hope today in the West Bank, but there remains a long road yet to be traveled. Meanwhile, of course, Gaza is in the iron grip of Hamas, which continues its implacable hostility toward Israel, and, indeed, toward the Palestinian Authority.

And third, the President, in his speech in Cairo, made a specific demand for action by only one country. He said, "It is time for these settlements to stop." Like the Secretary of State, the President made clear that he was referring to all settlements, everywhere.

The President has said that friendship entails honesty, and that he is being honest with a friend.

Yes, but among all the countries of the region, it was unusual to see our President single out only Israel – our "stalwart democratic ally," in the words of Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) – with such sharp focus.

To be sure, the settlements are an issue. We at AJC have said so more than once.

But they are not the underlying cause of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They should be addressed in the context of negotiations, not treated as a sine qua non for talks, as Palestinian leaders are doing now.

In fact, Palestinians seem to have interpreted – or misinterpreted – President Obama’s stance as a license to sit back while Israel is forced into concessions. As President Abbas said in a revealing interview, "I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements. … Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality. … The people are living a normal life."

In the end, Israel cannot and will not return to the fragile armistice lines of 1967. This was acknowledged by Presidents Clinton and Bush, and we hope that it will be reaffirmed.

As the late Abba Eban, an Israeli diplomat and peacemaker par excellence, said, "We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. … The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger."

Distinguished Senators, no nation other than Israel has experienced the daily trauma of more than six decades without peace. Today, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah openly call for its destruction.

No other nation in the Middle East has been a more steadfast friend and democratic partner of theUnited States.

No other nation, victorious in wars thrust upon it, has demonstrated more willingness to make painful concessions to advance peace.

The UN embraced the idea of two states – one Arab, the other Jewish – as early as 1947. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is not new. It was embraced by a majority of UN member states six decades ago.

An agreement, however difficult, remains possible today. Indeed, four consecutive Israeli prime ministers have called for a two-state accord.

Yet their Palestinian counterparts have not reciprocated, even when Prime Minister Olmert made what the Palestinians themselves acknowledged was an unusually far-reaching offer.

As Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently said, "I believe negotiations will be successful only with a renewed commitment from the Palestinians to be a true partner in peace."

In that spirit, why has Saeb Erekat, the PA’s principal negotiator, refused to negotiate with the current Israeli government, while holding talks with the Iranian foreign minister instead? Shouldn’t it be the other way around – spurning the Iranians and meeting the Israelis?

It’s no wonder that many Israelis are skeptical about the chances of achieving a solution. They seek reassurance that the United States, their indispensible friend and partner, stands with them in their quest for lasting peace and security.

President Obama has laudably reiterated his deep and abiding friendship for Israel on numerous occasions. Quite frankly, though, the polls show that many Israelis are not convinced.

Perhaps he could soon find an opportunity to pay a visit and speak with Israelis directly. It might do a lot to advance understanding among the Israeli public – and to reaffirm America’s belief, expressed by President Truman, that Israel is "not just another sovereign nation, but … an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization."

Thank you.

---

2nd Round - Bloody and Bloodless Coup

Honduras - where the bloodless coup happened - is expelled from the Organization of American States.

Ahmedinajad - the protagonist of a bloody coup in Iran - invites Obama for negociations.

Interesting what will be Obamas's position. Will he refuse to talk to Ahmedinajad the same way he is refusing to talk to Micheletti because, as Obama said to Micheletti "the takeover of power was not legal".

What do you think?

Bloody and Bloodless Coups

The Bloody Coup:

Iran's regime, ruled by the fanatic clerics, manipulate the ballots, and give the victory to Ahmedinajad. In the ensuing protests, they kill and wound demonstrators against what I call the "white gloves coup". They further arrest demonstrators and close affiliates of the candidate that should have won the election. The international community condemns the event, talks about sanctions....... nothing more than that, and life goes on....

The Bloodless Coup:

After the Supreme Court of Honduras rejects the Zelaya's - President of Honduras - request to have a referendum to change the Constitution (something that they were concerned could be manipulated, given Hugo Chavez's support for this change), Zelaya removes the Chief of the Armed Forces, whom the court ordered to protect the location where the ballots were guarded. Zelaya orders the invasion of that location, in order to proceed with the referendum against the Court's order. This is what led to the coup that removed him from power.

Not one drop of blood. You know why? Because unlike in the case of Iran, the new President has popular support.

How the international community reacts to it? In a much harsher way than in the case of Iran: the EU removes all its ambassadors, so does the Organizations of the American States which is expelling Honduras from the Organization and will boycott the country, and the United States issues a much stronger protest than in the case of Iran, and so it goes.

This is our world.....