The forecast is cloudy with some bright spots

Being around the youth of any country is often a window into where that culture is headed. My time in Israel has given me the opportunity to be around both Arab and Jewish youth, going to high schools in a variety of communities that reflect the socio-economic, cultural and ethnic diversity of this small country.

I have been coming here since 1991 and observed the divisions amongst people’s in Israel grow, with the gaps filled by more distrust and prejudice, but being with high school kids revealed an almost separate universe, where none of those feelings were shown. These youth are the bright spots, while the politicians continue to cast clouds over a seemingly intractable political solution.

I accepted the invitation to return to Israel to conduct these workshops with a bit of anticipation and an open mind. I normally come to this land to follow stories of a geopolitical nature, serious, tough and often depressing. It was with pleasure I hoped to experience a different aspect. I’m also much more interested now in finding the areas of hope and positivity, not the continued dirge of desperation and violence.

Photo workshop in Jisser A-Zarka (Photo: Naama Kleiman)

 

For me photography is engagement. With the world, people, issues, events, life itself. Being a photojournalist serves my desires to tell stories, reveal issues, make the world a slightly better place. By changing one person's mind, my work is a success. Illuminating, whether by casting light on an issue unknown, or by shedding new light on something we think we know, this is my challenge.

From an early age I wanted to tell stories. I also grew up during a politicized time in America, where culture, politics, social action and concern melded into one. My work has become a personal exploration and expression of those dynamics. Living the life of a photojournalist has also brought me into contact with places, peoples, cultures and ideas that have enriched my life. My photographs serve as a testament to this way of living, by a humble individual who cares about our world and its people, and who is passionately curious and carries an open heart and open mind into the void of life.

The language of photography is more powerful and pervasive today then at any time in human history. With social media we can now reach people across the globe to share both personal and profession stories through photography. The opportunity to spend time with Israeli high school students from a variety of backgrounds was a chance to share some of my knowledge and experience, but also to learn from them.

My first stop was in Jisser A-Zarka, a Muslim conservative community, the poorest Arab town in all of Israel and the last Arab village along the Mediterranean coast. In some ways it’s a place out of time, cut off physically from the rest of the country and hemmed in so unable to grow.

The kids there were fantastic, with beautiful faces that reflected the different hues of Arab identity. Many of the girls wore the hijab but their spirit and enthusiasm was infectious. The boys were mainly well behaved and overall I sensed a desire to learn and connect. When I showed work from other parts of the world, they were bursting with questions and curiosity.

Photo workshop in Jisser A-Zarka (Photo: Naama Kleiman)

When one of my assistants, an Israeli college photo student, arrived late to our workshop in Jisser A-Zarka, she was upset. Apparently the taxi driver did not want to drive into the town to drop her off. He was concerned about driving into this Arab town and as she said, “he’s a racist.” Then, this liberal and open-minded looking young woman said, “so am I in a way.”

This anecdote represents my sense of how things have changed in Israel. 20 or 30 years ago, a young, liberal minded woman would have not felt nor believed such thoughts. It’s a reflection of the hardening on both sides, from decades of conflict, occupation and war.

In the beautiful, ancient seaside city of Acre, my workshop took place at the American Corner—a cultural center supported by the Embassy and located in the beautiful Old City of Acre.

There I engaged with mostly Muslim and some Christian Arab youth that represented another socio-economic class. They were all dressed in designer jeans, nice clothes, the boys had stylish haircuts and the girls were modern and reminded me of young women I would meet in my own town in New Jersey.

At first, when I showed them work they seemed bored and utterly uninterested in other parts of the world, or for that matter photography. But once we went out to photograph around their town and then returned to review their work, there was this blossoming of spirit and opening of attitude. It was wonderful to see this transformation.

I also started to see beyond what I took as their jaded attitudes and eyes, to see their innocence and warmth. It’s also fascinating to observe in yourself how first impressions can be so utterly wrong, and when you take some time with people, especially youth, to listen and give them attention, their minds and spirits can open up in the bright and inspiring ways.

The next day I visited a Kiryat Gat school, a Jewish technical and science high school in what would be considered a middle-to-lower-class community in southern Israel. The kids were very engaged, albeit more self conscious and even pushy in their desire to look good and perform well.

The boys and girls were from diverse backgrounds and origins, including Russian speakers, Ethiopian, Arab, secular and religious traditions. At first they appeared disinterested and jaded, but by the end of our session they were bubbling with questions, excited about the work they had created and reflecting the warmth and good nature of bright youth.

Photo workshop in Kiryat Gat (Photo: Naama Kleiman)

In Kfar Saba, I worked with only Jewish girls, members of the Young Women’s Parliament, a youth leadership program. These girls were confident and smart, open to learning and eager to photograph. There was no spoilt or entitled behavior, which was refreshing to see.

As we drove to this town, the conversation in the car turned to the situation in Israel and Palestine, and what was decided on was that “it’s complicated.” Yes it is complicated, and given the trend of the past 10-15 years, the situation is growing every more surreal in my mind.

We were there for an annual cultural holiday, with kids dancing to Elvis Presley songs, a jazz band playing in one area, classical music in another. Clowns, Philippine caregivers with their elderly charges, beautiful families, people of all ages out enjoying their community with the gentle, cool breezes of spring creating a dusk of peace and tranquility. This idyllic, modern community is maybe 7 miles from the West Bank, yet a million miles away in terms of the socio-economic conditions and quality of life; besides the fact it’s not under military occupation. These alternate realities continue to rob me from completely appreciating the excellence of what Israel has achieved in a place like this.

Rahat is a conservative Muslim community in the southern district of Israel’s Negev Desert. Rahat is a predominantly Bedouin city with a population of 62,000, which makes it the largest Bedouin settlement in the world, and the only one in Israel to have city status.

Photo workshop in Rahat (Photo: Naama Kleiman)

Once again the students were mainly female and full of enthusiasm and unbridled energy, but the cultural differences in this town were immediately drawn into sharp relief once we headed out to make pictures. The restrictions on the girls made it hard to photograph very much. We stumbled upon a bakery, with young men working, but once the girls started to photograph, the men got upset and refused to allow girls to photograph them. Once we intervened, things smoothed out, but at every turn it was clear that this was not normal for women to go around their community taking pictures.

The youth I’ve met on this trip are full of life and ambition and a clear desire to learn and cooperate with one another. If we can change only a few minds and bring people closer by using photography and visual storytelling, then this is success. Efforts like this by the International Photography Festival based in Tel Aviv, Israel should be commended for their efforts to staunch the cynicism and fear through the language of photography.

Ed Kashi is a photojournalist, filmmaker, speaker, and educator dedicated to documenting the social and political issues that define our times.

‘This Is My Story’ is one of the International Photography Festival's annual social projects, in partnership with the US embassy, which uses photography and digital media as a tool to express one’s identity as a part of his or her community.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The forecast is cloudy with some bright spots : http://ift.tt/2snq9vk

In Ayoob Kara’s appointment, Netanyahu giving media the finger

In Ayoob Kara’s appointment, Netanyahu giving media the finger

Op-ed: Appointing the delirious Kara as communications minister is like appointing Incitatus, Caligula’s horse, as a consul. It seems like a joke on all of us, and primarily on the media which the prime minister despises, in a bid to show who’s boss.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

In Ayoob Kara’s appointment, Netanyahu giving media the finger : http://ift.tt/2sh6SvF

CUNY welcomes pro-terror Linda Sarsour

At graduation ceremonies across the country in upcoming weeks, students will be hearing from invited speakers. One would expect an academic institution to select an inspiring speaker who reflects the values of the university and represents the hopes of the graduates. For its June 1st commencement, The CUNY School of Public Health and Health Policy has invited Linda Sarsour. Sarsour’s record is replete with anti-American values, degradation of feminists and others who disagree with her, unbridled hatred of the State of Israel and those who support it, and the promotion of violence. This shocking choice of speaker, by a City University, should be changed. In the United States, violence and terror are not recognized as legitimate means to accomplish goals. Sarsour’s support of violence and terror include: praise of the intifada- the Palestinian terror war against Jews in Israel, through suicide bombings, car rammings, stabbings, bus bombs and other attacks,—as “invaluable on many fronts;” warm words of endorsement for convicted murderer Rasmea Odeh, who murdered two college students in a supermarket bombing in Israel (Odeh will be deported for concealing her terrorist crimes on her US immigration forms); and admiration of Palestinian youths throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers as “the definition of courage.” In our civilized society, these are the definitions of crimes. Sarsour supports barbaric methods that are incompatible with American law. Regarding feminism, a woman’s right to bodily integrity is a fundamental right. Yet Sarsour denigrates feminists who speak out against the role Islam plays in tolerating the abuse of women, such as genital mutilation and honor killings. She urges, in a tweet, a “whippin” of Somali human rights activist Aydan Hirsi Ali, a victim of female genital mutilation, who speaks out against Islam’s acceptance of abuse of women. Sarsour tweets Ali doesn’t “deserve to be a woman.” Sarsour’s attempted delegitimization of women who speak out against abuse is incompatible with feminism. Additionally, Sarsour defends Saudi Arabia’s oppressive treatment of women. In Saudi Aarbia, women cannot vote, study, work, marry, or open bank accounts without permission from male guardians. Women’s clothing is strictly regulated (they must be covered from head to toe, and only eyes and hands may show). Yet Sarsour tweets Saudi Arabia “puts us to shame” by providing “10 weeks of PAID maternity leave … and ur worried about women driving.” Sarsour’s defense of subjugation of Saudi women disqualifies her as a feminist.

Linda Sarsour on Facebook

Ironically, Sarsour excludes Jews and other Israel supporters from the feminist movement. This is anti-Semitic and spreads a lie about Israel’s treatment of women. There is absolutely no conflict between Zionism and feminism. In Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, all citizens have equal social and political rights, regardless of gender, religion or race. All citizens of Israel, be it Arab, Christian, or Jew, no matter what gender, have equal access to voting, transportation, hospitals, universities, swimming pools, public restrooms, etc. Israeli Arabs are Supreme Court Justices and have seats in the Knesset, and these positions can be held by men or women. Israeli Arab women have won or been runner-ups in The Voice (Israel), Master Chef, and Miss Israel. Moreover, sexism and discrimination perpetrated by Palestinian men against Palestinian women is pervasive, as described in a recent New York Times article, “In Gaza, Bicycles Are a Battleground for Women Who Dare to Ride,” February 22, 2016.

Sarsour’s unbridled hatred of Israel is prevalent. She advocates for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) movement against Israel, which seeks to cripple and delegitimize the State of Israel, while she ignores the world’s many countries with egregious human rights violations. Further, Sarsour tweets: “Nothing is creepier than Zionism;” and “(Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu is a waste of a human being.” When Sarsour was justifiably criticized for extolling throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers, she tweeted, “The Zionist trolls are out to play. Bring it.” CUNY in particular should be sensitive to anti-Semitism. Last year, Jewish students at CUNY suffered many anti-Semitic incidents. At a CUNY rally sponsored by Students for Justice for Palestine, protestors screamed at Jews to “go back home and get the (expletive) out of my country” and chanted “Jews out of CUNY” and “death to Jews.” Given these recent events, it is all the more appalling that a CUNY school would invite a divisive person with Sarsour’s record to deliver the commencement address. Knowing all this, CUNY’s refuses to rescind Sarsour’s invitation. It would be atrocious for CUNY to host a commencement speaker with a history of bigotry towards the LGBTQIA community, African Americans, women, or Hispanics. CUNY should treat Sarsour’s hate-mongering towards Jews and Israel in the same manner.

Given the current climate of division in our country, CUNY, and every university nationwide, should feel compelled to promote tolerance and civility. Sarsour’s platform, rife with bigotry, denigration, and endorsement of violence, must be rejected. CUNY must rescind her invitation. This is a teachable moment for today’s youth and tomorrow’s leaders. Don't waste it.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the view of Ynetnews or any of its affiliate publications.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

CUNY welcomes pro-terror Linda Sarsour : http://ift.tt/2qvnFyE

The American plan is to deal with northern Samaria first

American plan is to deal with northern Samaria first

Analysis: As part of the big package deal with the Arab world, the Trump administration has raised the idea of transferring lands from Area C to Area B. With his current coalition, however, Netanyahu will likely find it difficult to deliver the minimum that the US has promised the Arabs.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The American plan is to deal with northern Samaria first : http://ift.tt/2qvjjU9

Arab leaders did plan to eliminate Israel in Six-Day War

More than anything else, the Six-Day War has turned into a rewritten war. A sea of publications deal with what happened at the time. Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt, the revisers assert, had no ability to fight Israel, and anyway, he had no intention to do so.

It’s true that he made threats. It’s true that he sent more and more divisions to Sinai. It’s true that he expelled the United Nations observers. It’s true that he incited the masses in Arab countries. It’s true that the Arab regimes rattled their sabers and prepared for war. It’s true that he blocked the Straits of Tiran. It’s true that Israel was besieged from its southern side. It’s true that this was a serious violation of international law. It’s true that it was a “casus belli” (a case of war).

IDF forces at the Western Wall during Six-Day War. When there is a narrative, who needs facts? (Photo: Bamahane)

All that doesn’t matter, however, because there is a mega-narrative that obligates the forces of progress to exempt the Arabs from responsibility and point the accusing finger at Israel. And when there is a narrative, who needs facts? After all, according to the mega-narrative, Israel had expansion plans, so it seized the opportunity. Different scholars are distorting the facts in a bid to turn the Arabs into victims and Israel into an aggressor.

I was a child, an elementary school student. I remember fear, a lot of fear. There were no shelters in the house I lived in. I was clear that there would be bombings, so we dug pits in the yard.

Occasionally, we are reminded of the sound of thunder from Cairo to remind us of the annihilation threats. But in fact, they were much more serious. Both the Arab League and the leaders of all neighboring states announced in an unequivocal manner that the plan was annihilation. I repeat: Annihilation. Arrogant talk? Considering the fact that the Arab and Muslim world was engaged in endless self and mutual massacres, it was pretty clear that what they were doing to themselves—and it’s still going on—they would also do to Israel.

We must remember one thing, therefore: The alternative for victory was annihilation. So excuse us for winning. Because an occupation without an annihilation is preferable to an annihilation with an occupation.

The Arab states never accepted the State of Israel’s existence, not for a moment. There was no occupation from 1949 to 1967, but a Palestinian state wasn’t established, because the leaders of the Arab world didn’t want another state. They wanted Israel. They didn’t hide their intentions for a minute.

The new stage began in 1964. On the backdrop of a conflict over the water sources, the Arab League convened in Cairo and announced: “... collective Arab military preparations, when they are completed, will constitute the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel.”

Two years went by, and then-defense minister Hafez Assad, who went on to become Syria's president, declared: "Strike the enemy’s settlements, turn them into dust, pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews.” And for the avoidance of doubt, he added: ״"We are determined to saturate this earth with your (Israeli) blood, to throw you into the sea.”

Six-Day War. Those who rewrite history are winning

Nine days before the war broke out, Nasser said: “The Arab people want to fight. Our basic aim is the destruction of the State of Israel.” Two more days passed before Iraq’s president, Abdul Rahman Arif, joined the threats: “This is our chance…our goal is clear: To wipe Israel off the map.”

Two days before the war broke out, PLO founder and leader Ahmad Shukieri said: “Whoever survives will stay in Palestine, but in my opinion, no one will remain alive.”

Yes, that was the atmosphere. Does anyone still seriously think that those were just declarations? Does anyone think that their intention was an enlightened occupation? Does anyone think that there would not have been a mass slaughter like the one Egypt carried out in Yemen and later on in Biafra?

In order to understand that these were not false statements, it should be noted that in a meeting held after the war between Israel’s Ambassador to London Aharon Remez and British Foreign Secretary George Brown, Remez said that Israel had seized documents of the Jordanian army on operational orders, from May 25 and 26, about two weeks before the war, which included orders to exterminate the civil population in the communities that will be occupied as well. They believed at the time that it was indeed going to happen.

It isn’t clear, Remez said at the time, whether Hussein was aware of these orders, but they were very similar to the annihilation orders issued by the Egyptian army. This appears both in Michael Oren’s book about the Six-Day war and in Miriam Joyce’s book about Hussein’s relations with the United States and Britain, as well as in Dr. Moshe Elad’s book (“Core Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”). At first, Hussein rejected the claims about the annihilation orders out of hand, but later added: “As far as I know.”

The days passed. The threats increased. More and more forces were sent to Sinai. More Arab countries joined the war coalition. It’s unclear whether Nasser really wanted a war, Oren wrote in his book. But he and the Arab countries did everything in their power to deteriorate the situation. Nasser’s appetite kept growing, and immediately after blocking the straits, he declared: “If we managed to restore the conditions that existed before 1956 (the Straits of Tiran are blocked), God will surely help us and urge us to restore the situation that existed in 1948.”

The late Yitzhak Rabin, who served as IDF chief of staff at the time, told the government that “it will be a difficult war… There will be many losses.” He estimated that 50,000 people would be killed. And Oren, who had read almost every document that had been exposed, concluded: “The documentation shows that Israel wanted to prevent a war with all its might, and that up to the eve of the battles it tried to stop the war in every possible way—even at a heavy strategic and economic cost for the state.” These are the facts. But those who rewrite history are winning.

The political debate over the Israeli control of the territories has led to a situation in which political opinions disrupt the factual research. The political debate is important. It’s certainly legitimate. But there is no need to rewrite history to justify a political stance. It should be the other way around: Facts should influence political views. And the facts are clear and simple: The Arab states’ leaders did not only settle for declarations on an expected annihilation, they even prepared operational orders.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Arab leaders did plan to eliminate Israel in Six-Day War : http://ift.tt/2r4hJeC

Trump visit dominated by provincialism and lack of class

Trump visit dominated by provincialism and lack of class

Op-ed: It was enough to look at the English menu of the meal served at the prime minister’s residence or to watch Sara Netanyahu’s hyperactivity during the US president’s visit to feel embarrassed. There may be more important things to discuss, but even those who talk about ‘a wonderful Zionist speech’ are finding it difficult to see any achievements behind it.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Trump visit dominated by provincialism and lack of class : http://ift.tt/2rbExrd

If Russia recognizes Jerusalem, why can’t other countries do so?

On April 6, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow issued a statement which should have led to extensive Israeli diplomatic efforts all over the world. The sensational part of the announcement is that Russia is the first country in the world to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in an official statement, signed by the president.

Granted, it’s only a recognition of the western part of the city, alongside a statement that the eastern part of the city will be the capital of the Palestinian state when that state is established, but still, the statement as is stands as a significant development, and also a surprising one, in light of the identity of the country making the statement (Russia) and a rare diplomatic opportunity to receive similar recognition from many other countries. In a normal country, the Israeli Foreign Ministry would have turned this statement into a major PR campaign.

The actual recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, even without physically moving the diplomatic corpus real estate, could be a tremendous achievement for Israel (Photo: Shutterstock)

How was the statement born? Yaakov Kedmi (Yasha Kazakov), the first aliyah activist who had no family in Israel and received a permit to immigrate from the USSR after a stubborn battle, served in the army (in Ehud Barak’s tank in the October 1973 war) and joined the Nativ Secret Liaison Bureau—the Israeli intelligence agency which worked for the Jews of the Soviet bloc—before becoming its chief.

Kedmi was later accused by the Russian intelligence of operating agents in Moscow. He was declared persona non-grata until December 2015, when the Russian ambassador to Israel called him and informed him that the ban had been lifted. Since then, he has been a welcome guest in Moscow, and a series of conversations I held with him in recent months left me with the impression that he has a lot of appreciation for President Vladimir Putin and for the change he has led in Russia. Today, Kedmi is a regular commentator on Russian television and has an influence in the government corridors. He used his ties in the Russian foreign ministry to lead the Jerusalem recognition move.

The international recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has been very limited. After the 1948 War of Independence, and because the city was supposed to be placed under international regime (“corpus separatum”) according to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan, not a single country recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (despite recognizing Israel itself).

The United States, for example, has a consulate in Jerusalem, but it is not subject to the embassy operating from Tel Aviv. A law passed by Congress in 1995 states that the US must recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move its embassy there, but that has not been done. All US presidents have claimed the presidential waiver every six months, and President Donald Trump is about to do the same at the end of this month.

After the victory of the Six-Day War, following the enthusiasm over the State of Israel, and as importantly, thanks to the arms supply and military guidance they received from Israel, several embassies—mostly embassies belonging to African, Asian and some South American countries—relocated to Jerusalem, only to return to Tel Aviv a few years later (the last ones left Jerusalem in 2006).

Kedmi presented a rhetorical question to senior foreign ministry officials in Moscow: If Russia insists that Palestine’s capital should be in east Jerusalem, why should it have a problem recognizing west Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? The simple argument left Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s assistants surprised and with claims that “it’s very complicated.” Kedmi insisted, and the issue was eventually brought to the attention of Lavrov himself, who presented it to President Putin, who signed the declaration.

It’s premature, of course, to talk about moving the Russian embassy to Jerusalem, especially in the absence of a similar embassy in the capital of Palestine, a state which does not exist, for now at least. On the other hand, if Russia, which is not the closest country to Israel, has recognized Jerusalem as its capital, why won’t other countries do it? The actual recognition, actually putting it on paper, even without physically moving the diplomatic corpus real estate, could be a tremendous achievement for Israel.

But instead of enthusiasm, the Foreign Ministry was struck with paralysis. Why? Because any preoccupation with Jerusalem, which includes the fear of the actual thought of a Palestinian state, is so sensitive that it petrifies every Israeli government worker. And so, like in many other cases, like in the undemocratic fight the Israeli government is conducting against human rights organizations, like in the crawling implementation of the Israeli law in the occupied territories, and like the Right’s attempt to fight for its values in an aggressive manner, it leads to the opposite outcome and inflicts heavy international damage on Israel.

Ronen Bergman, a senior correspondent for military and intelligence affairs at Yedioth Ahronoth and a contributing writer for the New York Times, is the author of the forthcoming “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

If Russia recognizes Jerusalem, why can’t other countries do so? : http://ift.tt/2qshwPv

Trump’s message: No Mideast peace without Israeli concession

US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel was historic in many senses, mostly symbolic. In a practical sense, the non-Israeli part of the Mideast trip was actually the significant part, while the visit to Israel was a sort of preparation—foreplay if you like—for a process of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which President Trump plans to launch in the near future.

 

All these things were noticeable in the American president’s speech at the Israel Museum, shortly before he left the country. This speech included three messages: First of all, Israel is the closest ally the US has in the Middle East. Second, Israel is not the problem but, in many senses, the solution to the Middle East’s problems. And third, under no circumstances does the US intend on treating the parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equally—it explicitly favors the State of Israel.

US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel is not the problem but the solution to the Middle East’s problems (Photo: Kobi Gideon/GPO)

Another clear message was stated on Tuesday: The US will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. That is much more than former President Barack Obama’s formula that “all options are on the table”—while it was clear that that was not the case.

Trump showed that he still won’t let the facts bother him. He said there was a “big, beautiful difference” between his administration and the previous one, and then brought up American military aid for the Iron Dome project and the purchase of F-35 stealth fighters as an example. Unfortunately, both deals were signed and largely initiated by President Obama and his administration, which proves that President Trump sees “fake news” as a legitimate weapon, as long as it is in his hands and not in other people’s hands.

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump avoided publicly laying down the path in which he wants to establish peace between the parties. He only said two things: One, that he had found a firm commitment to the process both in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas; and two, that a change must come from both sides and from the inside.

In other words, Trump said, the parties must make the mutual concessions, and we won’t impose anything on them, although we will definitely help them—perhaps by exerting a little pressure sometimes—reach decisions. Nevertheless, Trump is clearly sticking to the policy adopted by the Obama administration and former Secretary of State John Kerry, who kept saying that the parties must make peace between them, and that the US should not force them into it.

Trump speaking at the Israel Museum. Still won’t let the facts bother him (Photo: Alex Kolomoisky)

The American president didn’t present any practical or concrete move through which he plans to launch the process of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He made no announcement on an international summit in the summer, as “inside sources” had predicted, or on the duration of the negotiations, which would be limited—according to those same sources—to 12 or 18 months.

Trump didn’t say anything that would serve as an indication of how he plans to turn the words and the promises into action on the ground, even if this ground is the diplomatic arena. But people who have heard him or received reports on his conversations with Middle East leaders are under the impression that the president is very determined to strike the big, ultimate deal.

Those same people got the impression that the Israeli-Palestinian deal is, at the moment, the main foreign relations legacy Trump plans to leave behind. Like every American president, Trump is already working on his “legacy” on the first year of his term.

So how does this information fit in with the allegedly insignificant things that Trump said in his speech? A possible answer is that Trump has yet to form a real outline, and that his visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority was aimed at preparing public opinion. We should pay attention to the fact that Trump showered his hosts with as many compliments as they showered him with, likely as a way to soften the sides—foreplay, if you like—ahead of the purposeful action that will follow.

The things Trump didn’t say were actually more meaningful. He didn’t talk about the settlements, neither favorably nor negatively, and he didn’t mention the two-state solution at all. Trump understands that these two issues could get Netanyahu in trouble with the Bayit Yehudi party and with people in the prime minister's own Likud party, and he doesn’t want those people to restrict Netanyahu before he decides with his advisors which path to take.

In short, the Mideast visit’s main purpose was to strengthen Trump’s standing in American public opinion through the deal with the Saudis and through uncompromising sympathy towards the State of Israel and the alliance with the Jewish state.

With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Without a concession on Israel’s part, there will be no peace (Photo: EPA)

American public opinion was also his target audience when he repositioned the US as a key player in the Middle East, and when he put himself at the lead of the moderate Sunni coalition—in which Israel is a silent partner—against the Shiite radical axis led by Iran.

All this works in favor of the State of Israel. Netanyahu’s right-wing government, however, probably won’t like the fact Trump learned during his journey to the Middle East, and mainly in the time he spent in Saudi Arabia, that there is no chance of normalizing relations between the Arab states and Israel before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved.

That is why he said in Bethlehem that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a condition for peace in the Middle East. In other words, Israel is not responsible for the fact that there is no peace in the Middle East, but without an Israeli concession—there will be no peace in the Middle East. And that, if you like, is the whole point according to Donald J. Trump.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Trump’s message: No Mideast peace without Israeli concession : http://ift.tt/2qwexoq

Trump: The seller of dreams

Trump: The seller of dreams

Op-ed: The US president used his Mideast visit to sell stuff—and he was very successful. He turned Saudi King Salman into his personal hero, and offered the Israelis sympathy. The Palestinians didn’t even get a right to self-determination, but Trump is such a good salesman that even they are satisfied.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Trump: The seller of dreams : http://ift.tt/2rKag5p

All Trump left Israelis with is a lot of hot air

Anyone who wiped away a few tears on Tuesday while listening to US President Donald Trump’s cliché-filled speech likely discovered that even the tissue paper laughed out loud. After two days of hollow ceremonialism, aimed at building the highlight of the visit—the speech—it turned out that the only thing one could learn from it was mainly how to say nothing using a lot of words.

 

It’s very easy to be tempted to see it as a “Zionist speech”: An American president standing and giving Israel his personal commitment that he won’t allow its destruction. What a spine-tingling moment that was, when he turned to us and promised that he, Donald J. Trump, would take care of us. What more does a nation at risk need, after being controlled through fear and intimidation for years? A state with massive military strength, which isn’t really threatened by any existential threat, but acts as if it is on the verge of a second Holocaust.

Trump and Netanyahu at the Israel Museum, Tuesday (Photo: Reuters)

We’re forgetting, however, that the person who is giving us this promise came straight from Saudi Arabia, where he finalized a $110 billion deal to supply the Saudis with arms systems. And this is a country which funds the world’s most radical mosques, which is behind dozens of acts of terror, including the 9/11 attacks.

But that can’t compare in any way to Trump’s hand on the Western Wall stones, to Ivanka’s tears or to the photo of the American president and the first lady laying a wreath at Yad Vashem. So what if Trump asked to take the shortened Yad Vashem tour, or if he forgot to mention the Jewish victims on International Holocaust Day, or if he was accompanied to Saudi Arabia by Steve Bannon, his senior advisor who is a declared anti-Semite?

Steve Bannon (Photo: AP)

But whoever watched our prime minister during the president’s speech must have thought that Trump was uttering the words of a living God. Benjamin Netanyahu’s body language, his hand gestures, the clenched fist, the pressed lips, expressed satisfaction, gratitude and mainly admiration: Look at the power, the commitment, the courage this president has! That’s exactly the kind of president that I, Netanyahu, would like to be. The president of the United States of America, of course.

What did we really have here, apart from a great atmosphere? The two-states-for-two-people solution was not raised even once. Nothing was said about negotiations. Even a peace process wasn’t mentioned. We don’t need the leader of the world’s greatest power to tell us that “making peace will not be easy, but with determination, compromise and the belief that peace is possible, Israelis and Palestinians can make a deal.” We already know that.

Trump in his visit to Saudi Arabia (Photo: AP)

So what did Trump leave us with? He left the Saudis at least with a good deal. What about our deal? During his visit, Trump didn’t say anything beyond what he had already told Netanyahu on the prime minister’s visit to Washington, which translates as “do whatever you like.” You want two states, you want one state—that’s just fine. There was no mention of the promises we have heard ever since he was elected, like moving the embassy to Jerusalem. All we got was a pile of words that were so sympathetic, so flattering, that it sometimes felt like he was actually laughing at us.

So is there any wonder that the Right is satisfied? No one has ever established a state with words. Netanyahu got what he wanted too: To be left alone. No Palestinian right to self-determination, no two-state solution, no 1967 borders and not even a building freeze—what else could he have asked for? Surprisingly, the Left is happy as well. As if the hot air that Trump left behind is something to hold onto.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

All Trump left Israelis with is a lot of hot air : http://ift.tt/2s78FTD

Smiling Rouhani will keep whitewashing radical Iran

From an Israeli perspective, Hassan Rouhani’s reelection as Iran’s president over the weekend is not necessarily good news. First of all, because when it comes to matters which are directly related to Israel’s security, the Iranian president does not call the shots.

The person who makes the decisions on issues like the nuclear project, the war on Syria, the aid to the Assad regime and the support for Hezbollah is the supreme religious and political leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He is the direct commander of the Revolutionary Guards, which are not only responsible for the development of the nuclear weapon, but are also directly running the war in Syria and issuing orders for Hezbollah.

The Revolutionary Guards and supreme leader Khamenei belong to the radical conservative faction of the ayatollahs, and so even if President Rouhani opposes the funneling of millions of dollars to Hezbollah (and to Hamas as well, about $70 million a year), he has no chance of making a change. Khamenei won’t let him touch the issues that are most precious to him.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Another term (Photo: AFP)

The second reason why Rouhani’s election is not necessarily good news for Israel and the Arab Gulf states is that if Khamenei wishes to violate Iran's nuclear agreement with the world powers for some reason, or to deceive the world and keep developing the atom bomb secretly, Rouhani will be the one who will market it to the world.

In the past, radical Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad served as a PR weapon in the hands of Israel and the United States. His radical comments led to the establishment of the tough sanctions system against Iran. But Rouhani’s sweet talk and smile offensive, which create the impression of a moderate person, could generate a serious consciousness problem for Israel if and when Iran decides to relaunch the race towards the bomb.

Rouhani is an extraordinary marketer, and with his image he is capable of curbing moves such as the Israeli and American effort to stop the development of ballistic missiles in Iran, which has been going on in contradiction of United Nations resolutions. With Rouhani as president—although he has no control over the Revolutionary Guards’ development of ballistic missiles—Iran will be able to play for time and reach compromises which won’t help us.

Another reason is that Rouhani was elected on the “economic ticket.” He promised to improve the economic situation in Iran, and mainly to drastically reduce the high unemployment rate among young Iranians. While the removal of the sanctions following the nuclear agreement with the world powers increased the dollar reserves in the Iranians’ coffers by billions and allowed them to resell oil with no end in sight, this situation has yet to infiltrate the middle and lower classes, and unemployed young people are still wandering the streets.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards (Archive photo: AP)

If Rouhani succeeds in doing what he promised to do in the current election campaign, it won’t be in Israel’s favor, as it will preserve the ayatollah regime forever. Rouhani may be defined in Iran as a “reformist,” and he may be willing to slightly remove restraints and bring in a bit of modernization, but he is still an ayatollah, the regime’s own flesh and blood, which is why even Khamenei welcomes his reelection. We should remember that he was responsible for developing the nuclear weapon as prime minister, so in any event, we are not talking about a righteous among the nations here.

Nevertheless, as far as Israel is concerned, there is also an optimistic aspect in his reelection. First of all, because Khamenei listens to him and accepts his opinion, many times in complete contradiction of the Revolutionary Guards commanders’ opinions. It’s possible, for example, that he will manage to convince the supreme leader to cut the hundreds of millions Iran is investing in Hezbollah.

Supreme leader Khamenei. Will he agree to cut support to Hezbollah? (Photo: Reuters)

The Revolutionary Guards see Rouhani as a bitter rival because he has been saying out loud that their economic power should be reduced. This military organization holds about 40% of Iran’s economy, gas and oil projects, civil industry, security industry, foreign trade and smugglings. The people who benefit from this situation are primarily the organization’s commanders and their people, who receive nice salaries and enjoy a much higher standard of living than Iran’s middle class and lower classes. Rouhani explicitly said during his election campaign that he would try not to increase that power budget. If he succeeds, it would be good news, as the Revolutionary Guards would be forced to be much less generous towards Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and the Shiite militias in Iraq. When it comes to the Iranian people, Rouhani’s election is definitely good news. He will likely get his people involved in the legal system, reduce the number of executions, increase the equality for women and their integration in the labor market and grant more freedom of religion, language and culture to minorities like the Azeris, the Kurds and the Baluchis. Rouhani may be an ayatollah, but he has good intentions too. The problem in Iran is that he is faced by major conservative forces and fanatic Shiite Islamists who will try to sabotage his achievements as much as they can. The battle in the country has yet to be decided, so Israel should also continue its intelligence surveillance and stay focused on what is happening there. The Iranians have a tendency to surprise the world if they are not supervised, even with smiling Rouhani as their president.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Smiling Rouhani will keep whitewashing radical Iran : http://ift.tt/2rqdCux

Between words and ancient stones: A loving yet realistic look at Jerusalem

Every year, on the eve of Jerusalem Day, I write about my love for the city and my disappointment with its political speakers. There is no other city in the world with such a discrepancy between words and action, between everyday Jerusalem and celestial Jerusalem, between holy and mundane. The city which was united thanks to the paratroopers, but is slowly splitting because of the politicians.

Jerusalem’s advantage is the romance it creates among its lovers. Whoever falls in love with Jerusalem cannot be weaned. The stones, the market, the holy sites and the mixture of religions and streams. In Jerusalem, religious radicalization and pluralism grow. So do philosophy and conservatism. It is the goal and the excuse for almost everything that takes place here.

Love for people and for stones is a dangerous business: When there is an exaggerated dosage, the famous syndrome arrives. In political eyes, one stops seeing reality. I am one of its lovers. If there is a city worth living in, whose lovers are not allowed to learn about, it’s Jerusalem.

Most Israelis know Jerusalem from songs and from election campaign declarations, from pictures and from official publications. Not through their feet (Photo: Israel Bardugo)

We have lost Jerusalem in the international arena. This is a truth which should be told even when we mark 50 years since the war. The Temple Mount is in the hands of the Waqf, and the Israeli government—instead of doing—is passionately speaking about its importance. A large part of the Jewish neighborhoods in east and north Jerusalem are under an unofficial freeze order. One time its former US President Barack Obama, now it’s Donald Trump, and another will follow. The city wraps itself in light on its holiday, but throughout the rest of the year most Israelis stay away. And now the Western Wall—the most famous religious symbol in modern Judaism—has turned into unclear mumbling in the Trump administration. Half a year ago, I was approached by Oxford University to participate in a literary debate from the right and from the left about Jerusalem. An exchange of letters ahead of the 50th anniversary of the city’s reunification. In my opinion, there is no chance to divide the city. Many of the neighborhoods are mixed. Jews live on the Mount of Olives, in Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood and in the City of David. Arabs from east Jerusalem work in the western part of the city. There is no surgeon who will manage to separate between these neighborhoods. There is no surgeon capable of connecting what had been disconnected. My literary rival in Oxford sees Jerusalem as a move towards peace. Anyone who knows Jerusalem thoroughly knows that there are actually three different parts: The western part of the city—with the veteran, well-kept neighborhoods; the eastern part of the city—with islands of governance, turning a blind eye to the Palestinian Authority’s involvement: A separate electric company and legal and educational systems which belong to Ramallah; and the third part—the neighborhoods beyond the fence—areas that an Israeli cannot, if only due the fact that there is a sign forbidding him to do so. Areas with no government or responsibility. Places where each person does what he feels like. Whoever has construction material builds tall buildings, and whoever has a weapon walks around with it. Areas which politicians must not talk about, so as not to be forced to deal and decide on their future. Most Israelis are unfamiliar with this division. I look into it when I address an audience. They know Jerusalem from songs and from election campaign declarations. They know it from pictures and from official publications, from the dress on the red carpet in Cannes or from the piece of jewelry that Rabbi Akiva gave his wife Rachel. Not through their feet. Their Jerusalem is reduced to the first part—the western part of the city. The Knesset, the Supreme Court and the Western Wall. Sometimes, they reach the Old City or the Church of All Nations at Gethsemane. The brave ones go up to the Seven Arches Hotel to the most beautiful observation post in Israel. That’s where it ends. Unfortunately, even Jerusalem Day has turned into Religious Zionism’s holiday. Most Israelis don’t come near, don’t know, don’t visit. In a quiz that I once conducted for Army Radio, it turned out the many Knesset members don’t either, including fervent speakers for Jerusalem. Now let’s consider whether the reality of the city can be translated to the Brits from Oxford or to Trump, who excels without knowing, whether the discrepancy between words and ancient stones can be explained. Fifty years after its liberation, Jerusalem needs people who will live in it—not politicians who adorn themselves with the city through dresses and protocols. It needs the government offices from Tel Aviv. It needs budgets that will turn the eastern side of the city into the west. It needs seculars and neighborhoods for young people in the east and in the west. It needs brave people who won’t be afraid to get to know what is happening in the city.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Between words and ancient stones: A loving yet realistic look at Jerusalem : http://ift.tt/2rmvfeT

A modest approach toward Mideast problems

Anyone who is slightly familiar with the secrets of the stock exchange knows that a company’s share price is not determined based on whether the company recorded profits or losses. It is determined based on the ratio between the results and the estimates. If the company earned less than the forecasts, the share price will drop. On the other hand, if the company lost less than the early forecasts, the price of the share will rise.

 

If I may borrow this financial image and apply it to the political-diplomatic world, the first day of US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel can definitely be deemed a success. While it’s still very difficult to measure in absolute terms at this stage, in light of the early predictions, there is no doubt that it was a very successful event.

Cynics may summarize the first day of Trump’s visit as a day of speeches. Trump jumped from a speech at the airport to a speech at the President’s Residence, and from a speech at the President’s Residence—after a short religious pause—to a speech at the Prime Minister’s Residence. But if we try to put the cynicism aside for a moment, it was a series of pleasant speeches which were music to Israeli ears.

Trump and Netanyahu. The most interesting thing in the American president’s speeches was that he did not mention the two-state principle (Photo: AFP)

The focus on terrorism and placing Iran at the center of the new “axis of evil” are an almost complete adoption of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy on these issues. In his speech at the President’s Residence, Trump made it a point to recognize the Jewish people’s connection to the Land of Israel. No longer just a “safe haven.” According to Trump’s speech, the Land of Israel is the Jewish people’s homeland. And of course, like with every other American president, Trump’s speech included a commitment to the alliance between the two countries. This is such a routine statement that it almost seems obvious to us. It’s important to remember, however, that it’s not that obvious.

But the most interesting thing in Trump’s different speeches Monday was what they did not include. In all his speeches, Trump did not mention the “two states for two people” principle. This mantra, which we have gotten so used to hearing from every Western leader who visits Israel, was completely missing from his remarks.

Make no mistake: Trump has not abandoned the American aspiration to bring peace to the Middle East. His speeches create the impression that he too is somewhat stuck in the belief that if only there were peace between Israel and the Palestinians, many of the Middle East’s other problems would almost solve themselves. Fortunately, however, Trump doesn’t think he is more familiar with the region’s problems than the two sides involved in the conflict. He is very eager to reach an agreement here, but he has no intention of forcing the parties to accept the agreement he is interested in. Such an American approach, which views the Middle East’s problems modestly, is a very refreshing innovation. Now, it’s the Israeli leadership’s turn to leverage this approach to positive places that will strengthen the State of Israel rather than to places that will weaken it.

So what did overshadow the visit? Even writing about it is unpleasant, but silence is not always golden. Knesset Member Oren Hazan. Is there anything that has yet to be said about this young, and somewhat amiable, man? How many more fiascos will we have to endure before his tenure at the Knesset ends? How many more times will we feel the natural and so simple need to look away in shame? Hazan’s act is not the heartwarming Israeli bluntness. It’s not an expression of the beautiful Israeli but of the ugly Israeli, the one who knows nothing about politeness and rules of conduct. The only comfort is the hope that in the next term, he will no longer represent us in Israel’s parliament.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

A modest approach toward Mideast problems : http://ift.tt/2qZh7r3

Can the Saudi weapons against Iran pose a threat to Israel?

The Islamic summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, held at the beginning of the week with the participation of US President Donald Trump, posed an opportunity for a comprehensive peace but also a long-term danger should the opportunity be missed. Trump coveyed an important message in the very precedent of making a direct public flight from Riyadh to Ben Gurion Airport in Israel.

Despite the euphoria in Saudi Arabia following the new president's unreserved support for the Saudi kingdom and his clear stance against Iran, the figures in Israel do not bode well. We cannot expect a change in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship to enable the desired political breakthrough. Between chances and risks, war and peace, is there room for optimism?

 

Riyadh Summit (Photo: Getty Images)

Is Salman bin Abdulaziz, the Saudi king who came to power two and a half years ago, the harbinger of the upcoming peace? The Saudi peace proposal has already been laid in the early 2000s and soon it will be 20 years without the proposal having been implemented or seriously discussed by the parties. At the base of the proposal lies the principle of "full and complete peace": that is, Israel is supposed to give everything—to relinquish control of all territories taken over until 1967 and to provide a just solution to the Palestinian refugees, and in exchange, receive everything—complete normalization with the Arab world, whom Saudi Arabia purports to represent.

Ever since then, the common interests of Saudi Arabia and Israel have increased in strategic and economic terms. The revolutions in the Arab world highlighted Iran's efforts to increase its influence in the region as a Shiite power. Israel and Saudi Arabia have a common fear of Iran's rising power. Russia is an ally of Iran and also of the Syrian regime loyal to Iran. On the other hand, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the most important allies of the US in the region, strategically and economically, respectively. Israel and Saudi Arabia are threatened not only by the Shiite world and by the arms of Iran—Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen—but also by the Sunni terrorist organizations—Hamas and ISIS.

In the closing photo of the Islamic summit, Saudi Arabia's King Salman was photographed alongside the leaders of Saudi Arabia's two closest neighbors—Jordan and Egypt—two countries that have peace treaties with Israel. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi stressed in his speech in Riyadh that the success of the struggle against terrorism depends, inter alia, on a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Though King Salman did not explicitly speak of a peace proposal, he did stress the urgency of solving the Palestinian problem.

The summit was attended by 55 countries and Saudi Arabia emerged as the leader of the moderate Sunni world. Everything seems to be going well. But is that indeed the case?

The decisions reached during the Islamic summit are directed against Iran and against the terror of ISIS. Saudi Arabia has signed an unprecedented arms purchase deal with the US. The Islamic Summit will set up the "Middle East Strategic Coalition" next year with its headquarters in Riyadh, which will initially appoint 34,000 soldiers and be responsible for what is defined as the "beginning of peace" and "war on terrorism." This body will in fact be the direct continuation of the previous coalition set up by the Saudis to fight the Shiite Houthis in Yemen, who threaten the oil routes. The goals of the force may appear positive in the short term, but one never knows what the future will bring.

More than once, moderate Sunni states defined Israel's actions in the territories as "terrorist acts." It should be noted that in the previous times when a large Arab force was established, it led to an all-out war against Israel—the War of Independence, the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. While conditions have changed since then, the situation in the Middle East is fluid and unpredictable.

Saudi Arabia is careful not to maintain public relations with Israel, and on the level of propaganda, Israel is portrayed by the clerics in the kingdom as negatively as Iran. This fact, together with the great power of clerics in the Saudi state established on the basis of the extremist Wahhabist ideology, casts doubt on the seriousness of the "full peace" proposal. In addition, it was decided at the summit to establish a headquarters in Riyadh, in order to "fight extremism and encourage interfaith cooperation and tolerance." Can such a decision be taken seriously in a country where sharia law still prevails, where women are forbidden to drive, thieves have their hands cut off and executions are carried out in city squares?

Saudi Arabia does not admit to the fact that the fundamentalist ideology underlying al-Qaida and ISIS stemmed from them. Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001, and many of the leaders of ISIS, are from Saudi Arabia. To this day, Saudi clerics preach against the "infidel" West, and Saudi businessmen donate money to Islamic terror organizations and the Salafi movement, which aspires to re-establish the Muslim Khilafat. Taking all of this into account, the Riyadh summit's statement that "there is no connection between terrorism and religion" is particularly ridiculous.

At the Islamic conference, it was decided to set up another mechanism in Riyadh for terror-financed warfare. Can Saudi Arabia be trusted to implement this commitment after so many years funding all the fundamentalist organizations in the Middle East? Do not elements in the kingdom currently finance terrorist organizations in Syria? The Arab-Muslim leaders at the summit even formulated a joint statement that Saudi Arabia will help promote education and improve the economic situation in the countries participating in the conference, in order to keep youth away from the ignorance, poverty and unemployment that lead to terrorism.

Unlike the alliance between the US and Israel, the US-Saudi alliance is based on financial interests and Saudi oil. While Israel has shared values with the United States—democracy, tolerance and freedom of expression—Saudi Arabia has been and remains a dark fundamentalist religious kingdom which preaches daily against the West and the US in the mosques and the education system. This odd alliance persists as long as the kingdom continues to supply oil in large quantities and cheaply.

However, according to the Saudis, the "party" will end in 2030 as the kingdom's oil reserves are quickly depleting. Until that time, the Sunni kingdom is supposed to form a completely different financial plan based on different sectors, and not just on oil. Would 23 years suffice for Saudi Arabia to undergo a complete overhaul and thrust the kingdom's rich and spoiled youth into the labor market? What will happen when the oil runs out and Saudi Arabia will possess stockpiles of weapons and the US will have no economic interest in Saudi Arabia?

King Salman and US President Trump (Photo: EPA)

There seems to be little chance of renewing the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at this time. In the Israeli government, the right-wing parties will topple the government if the prime minister raises the issue of progress in negotiations and handing over territories to the Palestinians. For a decade now, there has not been anything new on the Palestinian side, either. The internal Palestinian split is still going strong and there is no agreement between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip on any issue, first and foremost on the issue of negotiations with Israel. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas cannot promise Israel peace with Gaza because he does not control it. Hamas will never be willing to recognize the PA's agreement with Israel on the basis of the 1967 borders because it has not changed its jihadist positions since its establishment 30 years ago.

Unfortunately, despite the Iranian threat shared by Israel and the Sunni world, the political conditions are even worse than during the Oslo Accords, because despite the flowery statements in the media, there is actually no desire or ability among the leaders of the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to reach an agreement.

Saudi Arabia's sponsorship cannot contribute to the advancement of peace, since the Saudi king who governs in the name of religion as "the servant of the two holy cities of Islam"—Mecca and Medina—can never give up Muslim sovereignty over the Temple Mount , the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Therefore, because of the decision of the Sunni axis to condition diplomatic progress on the pan-Arab level on progress in the Palestinian sphere, the Trump initiative is likely to fail like its predecessors—the Obama initiative, the Bush initiative, the Clinton initiative, etc. Nevertheless, peace with Saudi Arabia could be a turning point in Israel's relations with the countries of the region. Perhaps against all odds, the very negotiations with the Palestinians could lead to a breakthrough with the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. We must remember that the negotiations with the Palestinians during the Oslo process, which ultimately ended in failure, did enable the peace agreement with Jordan that was signed during the Oslo proceedings.

 

(Translated and edited by N. Elias)

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Can the Saudi weapons against Iran pose a threat to Israel? : http://ift.tt/2qdgNFN

Israel marks 50 years of 'united Jerusalem,' but city struggles

A half-century after Israel reunited Jerusalem, the holy city remains deeply divided by politics, religion and ethnicity—and struggling with grim economic realities.

A treasure fought over for millenia, it is also one of Israel's poorest areas. About 45 percent of Jerusalem's nearly 900,000 people live below the poverty line, compared with 20 percent of the national population.

The poorer groups in Jerusalem are the fastest-growing: ultra-Orthodox Jews, or Haredim, who make up a fifth of the population and Palestinians, who comprise more than a third.

50 years of united Jerusalem (Photo: Gil Yohanan)

Many young, secular and educated Jewish residents are opting to leave, alienated by the religious atmosphere and high living costs, said the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research (JIIS) think tank. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel annexed the Arab east of the city to the Jewish west to create its united, eternal capital. Palestinians in east Jerusalem complain of second-class status and official neglect. "Jerusalem is a city that faces substantial challenges economically and that is partly because of the population that it houses," said Naomi Hausman, an economics professor at the Hebrew University.

Israel is this week celebrating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem. Its claim to the whole of the city as its indivisible capital has not won international recognition.

Palestinians want east Jerusalem to be the capital of a state they seek to establish in the West Bank and in Gaza.

(Photo: Reuters)

About 80 percent of Jerusalem's Palestinians and about half the Haredim live below the poverty line.

Haredi men generally dedicate themselves to religious study and few Palestinian women have jobs. Only 58 percent of Jerusalem Jews are in employment compared with 64 percent nationally, and just 40 percent of the Palestinian population work, according to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Each year, about 8,000 more people leave Jerusalem than move to the city, according to CBS data, with much of the exodus made up of young Jewish people frustrated by the high cost of living and lack of job opportunities. Ilana Butrimovitz left San Francisco for Jerusalem but spent barely a year there before moving away.

"I feel more free in Tel Aviv, not to mention the night-life and the beach," said the 30-year-old chef. "The vibe is better and there are more job opportunities for young people."

Then and now (Photo: Reuters)

Jerusalem's light rail line threads its way through the city's contrasting zones—past Haredi neighbourhoods where men in black garb walk the stone alleyways, by downtown cafes and pubs, alongside the walled Old City and to a sprawling new business quarter.

It's a city where everyone knows how to live together in equilibrium on a daily basis. There are also, obviously, divisions and surely the east-west division is the biggest," said Hausman. Palestinian men are often employed on the bottom rungs of the labor market ladder, according to the JIIS. "It's a dead end for us," said Hussam, a 28-year-old Palestinian lawyer in east Jerusalem. "Plain and simple: no, we do not have the same opportunities as Israelis."

Israeli businesses are often reluctant to employ Arabs, Hussam said, and some jobs are off limits for Jerusalem's Palestinians, who do not hold full Israeli citizenship, but are designated "permanent resident."

The Western Wall 50 years ago (Photo: Reuters)

Some public sector jobs require full citizenship, and some employers want staff who have served in the Israeli military.

"It fills one with despair, with anger, with frustration," said Hussam, adding that he planned to leave for Europe. Residential and business taxes in the city are among Israel's highest, meaning higher-earning residents are propping up the poorer ones. "Dynamically, doing this local redistribution is extremely problematic for a city, it can cause the city to attract more and more non-working and low-skill types until the city is in a poverty trap," Hausman said.

Maya Chosen, senior researcher at the JIIS, said Israeli authorities were finally acknowledging they needed to intervene.

(Photo: Reuters)

Since 2016, Israel has allocated almost a billion shekels (around $250 million) to a five-year plan to improve the business environment and expand tourism. One goal is to boost the city's high-tech sector and entice more start-ups to move there.

"They are trying to draw stronger populations, engineers, upper-middle class, to balance the weaker populations in Jerusalem," said Tzah Berki, senior vice president at Dun & Bradstreet Israel. Between 2012 and 2015, high-tech investment in Jerusalem more than quadrupled to $243 million, according to the JIIS. The Palestinians of east Jerusalem say they have seen little of the benefits. "It's just not on the radar of east Jerusalem's residents," said Nisreen Alyan, head of the Jerusalem Program at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).

"There is barely a school that teaches IT in east Jerusalem. In terms of location, the companies are inaccessible and most east Jerusalem residents don't speak Hebrew." The drop-out rate among high school seniors is 30 percent.

(Photo: Reuters)

Only 10 percent of the municipality's budget goes to east Jerusalem, Alyan said.

Jerusalem's mayor, former high-tech entrepreneur Nir Barkat, does not dispute there is a gap between the west and east. But he says it is a result of a shortage of funds and bureaucratic red tape going back decades to when the east was under Jordanian rule. "It's not politics, it's poor management and we're catching up," he told Reuters.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Israel marks 50 years of 'united Jerusalem,' but city struggles : http://ift.tt/2rRg4ap

Trump visit could cost Netanyahu dearly

It may be too early to predict whether US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel is going to be remembered as a turning point on the way to an agreement between Israel and its neighbors—Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and of course the Palestinians—but as Mrs. Sara Netanyahu revealed Monday evening, there is already one noticeable achievement: The prime minister’s “modest” residence, as she called it, was “painted and polished” in honor of Donald and Melania’s visit.

 

And so, even before the breakthroughs in the long journey towards an agreement with the Palestinians, which would force all parties to make painful concessions, Trump has already contributed something. Beyond a view of the painted walls, the cameras that entered the Prime Minister’s Residence on Monday evening allowed the Israeli viewer to witness directly—without any PR agents—the dynamics between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, to see who really runs the show. The answer was clear to everyone: The wife Sara.

It began at Ben-Gurion Airport with her attack on “the media,” which she says hate her and her husband. “We have something in common,” she told the American president. “Most of the people like us, unlike the media.” Several hours later, we got the images and sounds from the guest’s arrival at the prime minister’s residence with his wife. When Mrs. Netanyahu introduced their son, Yair, to the couple, the prime minister said: “He looks like his mother. Our other son looks like me.”

Sara and Benjamin Netanyahu welcome Donald and Melania Trump. The visit’s achievement: The prime minister’s residence was painted and polished in honor of the presidential couple (Photo: Avi Ohayon, GPO)

After Knesset Member Oren Hazan explained to Trump that many people in Israel regard him as “the Israeli Trump,” Sara Netanyahu spoke about the similarity between herself and the president in terms of the people’s affection and the media’s hatred. She promised to elaborate on the issue over dinner. Between one dish and another, the names of media personalities—from here and from there—were likely put on the table as well.

This meal could still cost us dearly. In America, as we know, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Netanyahu may find this truth hard to swallow. According to reliable sources, Trump plans to make Netanyahu foot the bill. He is convinced that there is a partner on the other side—and he is uncertain that there is a partner on the Israeli side.

In the two days he spent in Riyadh, Trump became convinced that if Israel wishes to reach an agreement with its neighbors and to become part of the anti-Iran alliance, it must pay in Palestinian currency. Israel must accept a self-determination of the Palestinian entity, whose borders will be set according to the 1967 lines and whose capital will be in east Jerusalem. In other words, Trump said to his Israeli hosts: You want an alliance against Iran? You want a regional agreement? You must decide if you are willing to uphold your share of the bargain.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Trump visit could cost Netanyahu dearly : http://ift.tt/2qNOo7M

Mr. President, beware Israeli and Palestinian lies

Mr. President, beware Israeli and Palestinian lies

Op-ed: Former Judea and Samaria Division commander calls on President Trump to ignore all the false arguments he is set to hear from both sides during his Mideast trip and put a clear formula for an agreement on the table.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Mr. President, beware Israeli and Palestinian lies : http://ift.tt/2reoFqH

The two-state tango is over

Israel has done everything that it can to promote a second Arab Palestinian state, except self-destruct.

 

It signed the Oslo Accords and withdrew from much of Judea and Samaria, all of the major Arab population centers, and all of the Gaza Strip, removing 9,000 Jewish citizens from their homes. It promotes and funds the Palestinian Authority, despite official PA incitement against Israel and Jews, support for terrorism, and collaboration with Hamas.

It was not enough, not even to convince Palestinians to continue negotiations, or stop incitement. And, as PA leaders have made clear, it will never be enough until Israel agrees to all of its conditions. Despite this reality, the international community and even some Israeli politicians insist on “the two-state solution,” as if the dangers posed by a Palestinian state do not exist.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas. Both one-state solution and two-state solution have the same objective: Israel’s demise (Photo: Reuters)

Israel is dancing alone.

“Our strategy is ‘bottom up,’ assisting Palestinians to build new towns, neighborhoods and infrastructure,” Israeli officials offer. “What’s good for them is good for us.”

At least until the music stops.

Although some thought that a peaceful settlement was possible when Israel signed the Oslo accords and agreed to Palestinian self-rule, those illusions were shattered by Arab violence and terrorism. After 24 years of failed efforts and delusional policies, and now regional chaos, the Israeli government must consider more realistic alternatives that serve its national interests.

Arguing for recognized and defensible borders is important, but begs the larger question: To whom does Judea and Samaria belong? Insisting that Israel remain in these territories primarily for security reasons forfeits the inherent rights of the nation-state of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.

Arab proposals for a “one-state” solution that eliminates Israel is an effective Palestinian strategy. By advocating a more extreme position, the “two-state” option seems more reasonable and acceptable. Both, however, have the same objective: Israel’s demise.

Israeli leaders, on the other hand, propose no alternative to a “two-state solution.” At best, they insist on keeping three large settlement blocs and Jerusalem as a united city and retaining control of the Jordan Valley. Not only is this unacceptable to Arab and Palestinian leaders, it is also wildly unrealistic. No Israeli government would consider further withdrawals from Area C in Judea and Samaria.

Moreover, core issues, such as eastern Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Palestinian “right of return” remain for Arabs “non-negotiable.“

Israel can promote a “solution” that sustains and is consistent with its own vital interests—sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, not only for strategic reasons, but because it is historically, legally and demographically part of the State of Israel.

The more Israel clings to plans for a Palestinian state that include most of Judea and Samaria, the more it undermines its legitimate claims and weakens its diplomatic position. An assertion of sovereignty, at least in Area C, in which 450,000 Jews live, along with an estimated 40,000 Arabs, would insure Israel’s vital strategic interests. Arabs living in areas under Israeli control could choose from a variety of options: Apply for Israeli citizenship, or residency; maintain their citizenship in Jordan and/or the Palestinian Authority; or resettle with compensation. Arab refugees and their descendants living under UNRWA’s sponsorship should be offered full citizenship in the countries where they reside.

A Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, as late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin insisted, is not an option.

Dancing alone may not be as satisfying as it is with someone else, and it can be a liberating experience; but dancing with someone who wants to trip you makes no sense. 

Moshe Dann is a PhD historian, writer and journalist.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The two-state tango is over : http://ift.tt/2rKZOYn

A Saudi embrace against Iran

A rare historic moment took place in Riyadh on Sunday: US President Donald Trump found himself in a state of embarrassment. Why? The amount of flattery he was showered with appeared to be too much, even for him. It happened during his meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who went to the trouble of defining him as “a unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible.” Trump, who is no stranger to megalomania, burst out laughing and replied: “I agree.” It was a symbolic moment in his trip to Saudi Arabia, which focused on anointing the president with refined oil and dollar bills. The deal it devised was simple: We will embrace you and do the sword dance around you, add a huge check for the arms deals and you will create an anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian axis.

Trump in Riyadh. We’ll do the sword dance around you and add a huge check for the arms deals, and you’ll create an anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian axis (Photo: AFP)

It’s a deal which works for both sides: Trump wants to show that he is providing budgets and workplaces to the American arms industry, which supported him in the presidential election. The Saudis are terrified by Iran’s progress and achievements in Yemen. There is also the war in Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the oil prices. The last point is critical: If the oil prices remain low, the International Monetary Fund predicts that the Saudis will lose their foreign currency reserves by 2020, which means the kingdom will become a failure: After decades of cheap oil, it has missed the opportunity to build a real economy—75% of its income is still from oil. Trump’s speech was basically a continuation of the traditional line adopted by all US presidents since the 9/11 attacks: The battle is not between religions or civilizations, but between “barbaric criminals,” the terrorists,” and the “decent people.” Between the good and the bad. An attempt to embrace the Arab world which opposes terror, and emphasize its centrality—while pushing the radicals away. Ironically, of course, the speech took place in the homeland of Wahhabist Islamist radicalism. But irony is not an obligation in the Trump era. Where is the Trump who built his political career on condemning Islam and the Muslims? The Trump who said, “I think Islam hates us”? Well, he has evaporated. Some people are trying to define every comment he makes as a “historic” change from the Barack Obama era, but a review of his predecessor’s Cairo speech demonstrates that the call on the Muslim nation to denounce terror, the distinction between terrorists and law-abiding Muslims, the opposition to the “clash of civilizations” characterized the Obama rhetoric as well. Obama also signed $115-billion arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Trump signed on $109 billion—a deal which was prepared during the Obama era. The Saudi promise for another “$350 billion over 10 years” is written on the shifting sands of Hejaz.

What was different about the speech was the American president’s oath of allegiance to the Sunni narrative in the Middle East: A day after the Iranians celebrated a reformist victory, America informed them that it is actually severing ties. The Saudis were satisfied, and satisfaction may have been recorded in Jerusalem as well.

It’s hard for us, as Israelis, to accept the fact that the president’s visit here is a supplement of his important visit to the Arab world. But this is reality: The money is there, and so are the big troubles, as Trump sees them—the radicalization which is followed by the violence.

The real American-Israeli dialogue began as Air Force One landed at Ben-Gurion Airport on Monday. Does Trump intend to invest a real political capital in Mideast peace, or is it only rhetoric? Will he push the parties into an agreement, or will he settle for “sincere efforts,” as American diplomacy is accustomed to? And most importantly, what part will Israel play in the regional alliance that is taking shape against Iran and in the possibilities of a conflict with the Islamic Republic? This possibility, without a doubt, increased significantly on Sunday evening.

Nadav Eyal is Channel 10's chief international correspondent.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

A Saudi embrace against Iran : http://ift.tt/2qIsJxU