Tag Archives: israel

Will you still hate me when I’m 64?

(…)

The die has long since been cast; the fight will take place. The Jews with their backs to the sea, fighting for their very homes, with 101 percent morale, will accept no compromise. On the other hand, the Arabs say:

“We shall bring Moslem brigades from Pakistan, we shall lead a religious crusade for all loyal followers of Mohammed, we shall crush forever the invader. Whether it takes three months, three years, or 30, we will carry on the fight. Palestine will be Arab. We shall accept no compromise.”

The United Nations is scoffed at by both sides and the United States will never be able to regain the position of ascendancy she previously enjoyed with the Arab world. She lost the love of the Arabs when she supported partition. She lost their respect when she reversed that decision. She lost it irreparably. For days on end Arab commentators drummed into their people that finally the power of the Arab world had been realized.

(…)

The above is excerpted from the last in a series of four articles written for the Boston Post by Robert F. Kennedy between June 3rd and June 6th, 1948. The complete series can be found here.

Mr. Kennedy would die twenty years (to the day) after he wrote these words, shot by Palestinian Arab Sirhan Bishara Sirhan on the first anniversary of the 1967 Six Day War. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Conflict, Words

MLK

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect her right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs. Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality.”

— Martin Luther King Jr., March 25, 1968, ten days prior to his death

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Conflict, Love, Reason, Words

Egyptian turmoil: The Israeli position

*

Address delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
February 4, 2011, at the Knesset (Israeli parliament) in Jerusalem

*

Yesterday was a dramatic day in our region. Millions of people poured into the streets of Egypt.

President Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, announced that he will not run in the next presidential elections, and will work to introduce governmental reforms in Egypt.

In Washington, London, Paris and throughout the democratic world, leaders, analysts and researchers spoke about the opportunities that change in Egypt could bring. They spoke about the promise of a new day.

These hopes are understandable.

All those who cherish human liberty, including the people of Israel, are inspired by genuine calls for reform and by the possibility that it will take place.

It is obvious that an Egypt that fully embraces the 21st century and that adopts these reforms would be a source of great hope for the entire world, the region and for us.

In Israel, we know the value of democratic institutions and the significance of liberty. We know the value of independent courts that protect the rights of individuals and the rule of law; we appreciate the value of a free press and of a parliamentary system with a coalition and an opposition.

It is clear that an Egypt that rests on these institutions, an Egypt that is anchored in democratic values, would never be a threat to peace. On the contrary, if we have learned anything from modern history, it is that the stronger the foundations of democracy, the stronger the foundations of peace. Peace among democracies is strong, and democracy strengthens the peace.

One possible scenario, which undoubtedly unites us all, is that these hopes for democracy and a gradual, stable peace process are realized in Egypt.

HOWEVER, THIS is not the only possible scenario. Because far away from Washington, Paris, London – and not so far from Jerusalem – is another capital in which there are hopes.

In this capital, there are leaders who can also see the opportunities that change in Egypt could bring.

They also support the millions who took to the streets.

They too speak about the promise of a new day. But for the people in this capital, the promise of a new day is not in its dawn but in the darkness it can bring.

That capital is Teheran, and I assure you, that the leaders in Iran are not interested in the genuine desires of Egyptians for freedom, liberalization or reform, any more than they were interested in answering similar calls for freedom by the Iranian people, their own people, only 18 months ago…

The Iranian regime is not interested in seeing an Egypt that protects the rights of individuals, women and minorities. They are not interested in an enlightened Egypt that embraces the 21st century. They want an Egypt that returns to the Middle Ages.

They want Egypt to become another Gaza, run by radical forces that oppose everything that the democratic world stands for.

We have two separate worlds here, two opposites, two worldviews: that of the free, democratic world and that of the radical world. Which one of them will prevail in Egypt? The answer to this question is crucial to the future of Egypt, of the region and to our own future here in Israel…

Should the forces that wish to carefully reform and democratize Egypt prevail, I am convinced that such positive change would also buttress a wider Arab-Israeli peace. But we are not there yet.

For over 30 years we have enjoyed peace on two fronts. One is a peaceful border with Egypt, and the second the peaceful border with Jordan… It has changed the world and it has changed the State of Israel. It changed our strategic situation.

That is why preserving the existing peace is vital for us.

We expect any government of Egypt to honor the peace. Moreover, we expect the international community to expect any government of Egypt to honor the peace.

This must be clear, along with the discussions about reform and democracy.

We must also humbly recognize the truth – that these immense revolutions, these dramatic changes, this earthquake – none of this is about us. We are in a turbulent situation. In such situations we must look around with our eyes wide open. We must identify things as they are, not as we’d like them to be. We must not try to force reality into a preconceived pattern.

We must accept that a huge change is taking place, and while it is happening – keep a watchful eye.

The basis for our stability and our future, for preserving or extending the peace, especially during unsteady times, is by reinforcing the might of the State of Israel.

That requires security and also for us to be honest with ourselves.

To be honest with ourselves and refrain from self-flagellation on account of the problems we are surrounded with and the changes that are taking place.

It is easy to blame ourselves for these and also for the Palestinian issue.

Because when we blame ourselves, we feel that we are in control, that developments depend on us. Otherwise, there are those who feel helpless when faced with these changes…

I said that we are willing and we want to promote the peace process with the Palestinians.

I have said that the first two components of this peace process are mutual recognition and security. I have said numerous times that we need real security arrangements. Not only because they sustain peace, but also because they ensure our security in the event that peace unravels – and in the Middle East no one can guarantee the survival of any regime.

I HOPE that President Abbas will regard the changes taking place in the region as an opportunity to sit down with us and discuss peace without preconditions, negotiations that take into account changes that will affect Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

I hope President Abbas will join me in a sincere effort to explore the options for a realistic peace with realistic security arrangements needed in the reality in which we find ourselves – for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians and our common future.

In this reality, Israel must fortify its might. We must maintain our security. We must strive for a stable peace with determination, caution, responsibility and, above all, with watchful eyes that recognize reality.

*


Leave a comment

Filed under Conflict, Peace, Reason, Words

Mideast: Dec. 8, 2009

Many small waves breaking at the same time. Strong undercurrents…

Lebanon
Israel appears to be moving toward giving up the north-half of the village of Ghajar to Lebanon, probably along with Shebaa Farms. This would effectively mean that no Lebanese territory would then be under Israeli control. (This could have been resolved much sooner, but for disagreements between Lebanon, Syria and the UN as to the true ownership of the lands in question.)

Residents of northern Ghajar who don’t wish to become Lebanese citizens would have the right (as full Israeli citizens) to remain in Israel, though they would have to leave their current homes in the north end of town. Some resettlement funds will probably be allotted by the government.

With the Israeli ‘occupation’ at an end, Hezbollah should stand down, but will they? They have recently deployed thousands of rockets south of the Litani River in direct contravention of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

Syria
Indications seem to be that Syrian President Assad may be prepared to ‘get creative’ on certain issues related to the Golan Heights. (More on that soon…)

Gaza
Israel has notified various embassies that diplomatic visits to the Gaza Strip will not be possible through Israel at this time. While some people will be critical of the move, there’s an easy workaround for the problem — visit Gaza through Egypt instead.

If Hamas will not engage with Israel, then Israel should not be expected to facilitate the diplomatic adventures of Gaza’s overtly-militant Hamas government, which (only this week) tested out some new, sophisticated rockets freshly smuggled into the territory through its extensive tunnel network.

West Bank
As previously disclosed, PA PM Salam Fayyad will be running the show in Ramallah from now on, with PA President Mahmoud Abbas booking off work for an extended vacation.

There’s a distinct possibility that the Americans may be getting ready to hand over control of Palestinian security force training to the Brits and Canadians currently working on that mandate under US General Keith Dayton.

Upshot
The opportunity to achieve a lasting peace between Jewish and Arab Palestinians has rarely, if ever, been nearer. The opportunity to reach a peace deal between Israel and Syria, as well as between Israel and Lebanon, has absolutely never been closer.

But what about the Iranian ‘leadership’? They’re already dealing with fraying public control, a stumbling economy, apocalyptic delusions, looming international sanctions for their nuclear transgressions — and now this? Possible peace? It must be driving them crazy. And that’s the sort of thing that could be dangerous for everyone — if only because they’re the ones supplying the missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah.

1 Comment

Filed under Conflict, Peace

Palestine at the Crossroads

The main issue currently in the public eye is the possibility that the Palestinians may declare their own state independent of negotiations with Israel. Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said as much last week, and since then, PA spokesman Saeb Erekat has been heavily pumping that message.

The idea hasn’t been gaining much traction with Security Council members — or the Israeli government, which has announced that it could also act unilaterally; possibly by protectively annexing existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Ultimately, the Palestinians certainly will have to declare a state for themselves — I mean, no one else can declare your independence for you — but the idea that all the Palestinian factions could come together and decide upon definitive boundaries for their intended state seems far-fatched. Hamas and Islamic Jihad (just to name two) are convinced that their state should also include all of Israel!

The one to watch in this situation is not President Abbas, but Salaam Fayad, the Fatah-backed PM. He’s smart and pragmatic and has proven in the past to be an honest partner for the Israelis. He readily admits that Palestine doesn’t yet have the necessary infrastructure to properly govern itself, but feels that this goal is attainable within two years.

Of course, Iran and its proxies always have to be treated as a wildcard.

So does Avigdor Lieberman; whatever will he say next? (Perhaps I’m being unfair to the Israeli Foreign Minister. Most people will–even if reluctantly–agree that Mr. Lieberman has been a great deal less controversial than expected.)

UPDATE: (Nov. 18) Erekat is now singing a different tune, saying that the aim is only to get international bodies on-side with recognising the pre-1967 borders of Palestine.

(Note: This notion will get some lip service, but a final resolution on borders will only come during negotiations with Israel. The most likely result will be a state line that follows the pre-’67 border though about 93% of its length, with any shortfalls in Palestinian land area being supplemented by land grants from adjoining Israeli properties to the northwest and southwest of the current West Bank territory. Gaza’s borders would remain unchanged since there are absolutely no Israelis living there.

However, a nice cherry on top of any final agreement of the situation would be a minimum 20% expansion of the Gaza territory through donations of property from both Egypt and Israel. This would provide more room for growth and development; reduce population crowding; and mitigate many risks to Israeli and Egyptian security now posed by Gaza’s extensive tunnel network.)

~

Read our take on Middle East peace: A Peace of Jerusalem

Short wikipedia entry on Salaam Fayad.

JPost article about Mr. Fayad’s stance on the current issue.

2 Comments

Filed under Conflict, Reason