web analytics
December 8, 2016 / 8 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘peace’

‘Peace Index’ Survey Reveals 48% of Israeli Jews Believe Left ‘Disloyal’

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

The Monthly Peace Index, published on Monday by the Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University, found that a significant percentage of Israeli Jews consider the Left disloyal. 55% of the Jewish public agree that criticizing policy in times of security tension is illegitimate, and 48% of Israeli Jewish citizens think the political Left is not loyal to the country. 43% think the Left is loyal. In the Arab sector, 69% view the Israeli left as loyal to the country.

The monthly survey questions a representative sample of 600 Israelis, 500 Jews, 100 Arabs, from Nov. 29  to Dec. 1, 2016.

Trump is good for Israel? 48.5% of the Jewish public believe President-elect Trump is more sympathetic to Israel, while only 1% think he is more sympathetic to the Palestinians. 22% saw him as equally sympathetic to the two sides, and 7% did not see him as favoring either side. 22% were not sure. 60% of Arabs view the President-elect as more sympathetic to Israel.

A whopping 80.5% of the Jewish public agree with the recent statement by Ambassador Ron Dermer that “Israel has no doubt that President-elect Trump is a true friend of Israel.” In the Arab public a very similar rate expect US-Israel relations will flourish under Trump, although that does not necessarily make them happy.

55% of the Jewish public do not fear that the new president’s election will foster a rise in US anti-Semitism. Interestingly, the further to the left a respondent was, the more afraid they were of rising anti-Semitism under Trump. And, in a reversal of historic roles, 73% believe that the Israeli government should intervene on behalf of American Jews and use its ties with the Administration to get it to act against anti-Semitic phenomena.

On December 25, the Samaria settlement of Amona is expected to be demolished and evacuated following a Supreme Court ruling. The Netanyahu government is advancing the Regulations Act to prevent future demolitions and possibly the Amona destruction as well. The Jewish public is divided on this question, with 46% supporting the government’s pro-settlement position, and 43% supporting the attorney-general’s resistance to the proposed law. Among those defining themselves as rightwing, more than two-thirds identify more with the government’s position; among those defining themselves as leftwing, some 80% identify more with the attorney-general’s stance.

The proposed “muezzin law,” prohibiting the use of loudspeakers in Israeli mosques from 11 PM to 7 AM is supported by 56% of the Jewish public. 59% believes understandings can be reached on the problem of the disturbance created by the muezzins’ calls, and that the issue can be resolved in less official ways. 93% of Arab respondents believe that understandings and a satisfactory solution could be achieved in non-legislative ways.

On the idea of annexing all of Judea and Samaria, 49 years after Israel had liberated them, 44% of the Jews in Israel support annexation, 38% object. As for the assertion that “If the territories are annexed and one state is established under Israeli rule, there will be no choice but to give the Palestinians full and equal civil rights,” 48% disagree while 42% agree.

JNi.Media

Peace Now Urging Destruction of War Heroes’ Monuments

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

Peace Now, representing Arab claimants have told Israel’s Supreme Court they insist on the demolition of monuments to IDF war hero, special force Sayeret Matkal Lieutenant Colonel Emanuel Moreno, who was killed on a secret mission during the 2006 second Lebanon war; and First Lieutenant Asher Ezra who was killed in a chase after terrorists in Lebanon in 1993. Both monuments are slated for demolition by the end of December. They are part of the Netiv Ha’avot neighborhood in Gush Etzion outside Jerusalem, which was slated for demolition no later than March 2018 by the Supreme Court.

The families of both war heroes appealed to Supreme Court President Justice Miriam Na’or asking that the monuments be demolished when the rest of the neighborhood is slated to be razed, to give them time to find a new location.

“Our appeal to you is personal, painful and heartfelt,” the families wrote Na’or. “The site was established in good faith, displacing no one and nothing, and disturbing no one.”

“We were not aware of any problem associated with the location,” the families continued, stressing that the monuments are obviously not housing units. They also wrote they had not been aware of the litigation associated with the location.

Peace Now refused the families’ plea, suggesting “another delay will be used by respondents to torpedo the return of the land to its rightful owners.”

“While acknowledging the sadness involved, the claimants do not bear responsibility for past failures nor the fact that the [memorial’ was built illegally and without their consent. […] The pain caused the Moreno and Asher families was not the fault of the land owners,” Peace Now told Justice Na’or.

David Israel

Prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace? Less than a Snowball’s Chance in Hell

Wednesday, November 30th, 2016

{Originally posted to the Commentary Magazine website}

If you want to know why the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace are currently zero, consider Avi Issacharoff’s report in the Times of Israel last week about Fatah’s Seventh General Congress, which is slated to take place in Ramallah on Tuesday. The Congress is supposed to elect Fatah’s two main leadership organs, the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council; one candidate for the latter is Nasser Abu Baker, a reporter for Radio Falastin. “Abu Baker, who used to maintain close ties with his Israeli colleagues, has boycotted Israeli journalists since he began nurturing his political career,” Issacharoff wrote matter-of-factly.

Fatah, of course, is Israel’s official peace partner, twice over. It is the main component of the PLO, the organization that signed the Oslo Accords with Israel, and also the party headed by the “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president and PLO chairman. Yet it turns out that the way to win votes among members of Israel’s “peace partner” is not by promoting peace, but by refusing even to talk to your Israeli colleagues–even if they are among the most pro-Palestinian Israelis you’re ever likely to find, as is true of most Israeli journalists.

Moreover, this practice of boycotting Israelis has actually gotten much worse under the “moderate” Abbas, as another Israeli journalist noted in an unrelated article last week. Interviewed by Haaretz about his new television series on the Arab world, Ohad Hamu, the Arab affairs reporter for Channel 2 television, recalled:

Not so long ago I could wander freely around Gaza and the West Bank and bring cultural and political stories, but today there are few places I can enter in the West Bank … The Israeli media doesn’t go into something like 70 percent of the West Bank, and even when I do go, it’ll be to film some 10-minute dialogue with someone and then we’re out of there right away, because it’s just become too dangerous. They don’t want to see us there … Israeli journalists used to serve as a bridge between Israeli and Palestinian society, but this bridge has been gradually cracking.

Nor is this problem exclusive to journalists. The “anti-normalization” campaign–a euphemism for refusing to talk to Israelis and intimidating others into doing the same–has also produced boycotts of Israeli cultural figures, businessmen, nongovernmental organizations and more.

Clearly, it’s difficult to imagine Israeli-Palestinian peace breaking out as long as even talking to Israelis is taboo, to the extent that even in the “moderate” Palestinian party, someone running for office feels obligated to start boycotting his Israeli colleagues. It’s hard to make peace with other people if you aren’t willing to talk to them.


But the fact that this problem has been getting worse rather than better over the past two decades shows that, far from advancing prospects for peace, the “peace process” has dealt them a blow from which it may take generations to recover. By creating and financing an autonomous Palestinian government without making peace education an integral part of the package, the Oslo process and its supporters–both Israeli and Western–have allowed the Palestinian Authority to spend the last two decades systematically teaching its people to hate Israel. The fact that even talking to Israelis is now seen as a major impediment to electoral office is the direct result of the way the Palestinian education system has poisoned the minds of its children, which I’ve described before:

This [PA] curriculum rejects the legitimacy of Israel’s existence (textbooks refer to “the so-called State of Israel”), justifies violence against it, defines such violence as a religious obligation and informs students that Jews and Zionists are irredeemably evil (one book, for instance, refers to “the robbing Jews”; another tells students that Israel “killed your children, split open your women’s bellies, held your revered elderly men by the beard, and led them to the death pits”). These messages are then reinforced by the “educational” programs broadcast on the PA’s official media, where Jews are described as “monkeys and pigs,” “enemies of Allah” and the “most evil of creations,” among other charming epithets.

The indoctrination effort is assisted by the fact that most Palestinians today have no firsthand knowledge to counteract the vicious incitement churned out daily by Palestinian schools and media. That’s a result of the escalating terror that followed the PA’s establishment in 1994 severely curtailed the daily interactions between Israelis and Palestinians that were commonplace until then. Those interactions made it easier for both sides to at least view the other as human beings.

Today, outside the construction industry, most Israelis never encounter a Palestinian unless they’re doing army duty, and most Palestinians never encounter any Israelis other than soldiers. In other words, the only Israeli-Palestinian interactions that take place today are the kind that reinforces each side’s view of the other as an enemy. That is precisely what the “anti-normalization” campaigners want, and why they castigate any other type of contact with Israelis as tantamount to treason.

It’s going to take a long, long time, and probably a lot of pressure from the PA’s Western donors, to reverse these decades of hate education. But until that happens, the chances of Israeli-Palestinian peace are considerably less than a snowball’s chance in hell.

Evelyn Gordon

Peace Now Co-Founder: Netanyahu Behind Arsons to Divert Attention from his Corruption

Friday, November 25th, 2016

Amiram Goldblum, Hans J. and Tilly Weil Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem School of Pharmacy, posted on his Facebook page Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, through the services of his devoted fans, is behind the wave of arsons plaguing Israel in recent days.

Goldblum, a co-founding leader of Peace Now, who served as its spokesperson for 20 years, initiated the Settlements Watch project of Peace Now, serves on the board of the international council of the New Israel Fund, and ran for the Knesset on the Meretz list (87th spot) suggested that the fires are Netanyahu’s attempt to divert attention from the submarines purchase scandal which, Goldblum insists, “is the worst scandal since the establishment of the State.”

“Netanyahu’s incitement intifada is raging across the country,” Goldblum posted. “It’s difficult not to see the connection between Netanyahu’s incitements following the arsons and the submarines scandal.”

Using “pure logic,” the otherwise brilliant chemist Goldblum argued that “the main benefactor of the fires across the country is Benjamin Netanyahu whose submarines affair only two days ago was given over to the police for an investigation – and, lo and behold, the arsons started right away! Is there a connection between the two issues? Will the [Netanyahu] investigation be as shallow as the fire investigations be deep? Will Netanyahu supporters be found to have been involved? Will Israel police examine the possibility of nationalistic arsons… by Jews in order to smear the Arabs?”

The post, reported by the website Tziutzim, has been taken down since, but we enclose a screenshot validating the story.

professor-amiram-goldblum-facebook-post

Goldblum is the inventor of an algorithm for solving extremely complex combinatorial problems, known as Iterative Stochastic Elimination (ISE). He is on the board of two Hebrew University science-related companies that are based on his research, Sensotrade and Pepticom.

Goldblum’s son, Dan Goldblum, who served in IDF Commando Unit Sayeret Matkal, was badly wounded in the unit’s rehearsal of Operation Bramble Bush to kill Saddam Hussein, in 1992.

JNi.Media

International Peace Conference Would Endanger Israel

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected France’s call for an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But before anyone concludes that only “right-wingers” oppose such a conference, it’s worth recalling that one of the most outspoken critics of the conference idea was Yitzhak Rabin.

The year was 1985, and Rabin was Israel’s minister of defense. Arab leaders had been pushing for the convening of an international peace conference. Rabin and other Israeli leaders were insisting on direct Arab-Israeli negotiations.

The Reagan administration had always supported Israel’s position. But in the spring of 1985, there were media reports that Secretary of State George Shultz was starting to warm up to the idea of an international conference. A worried Rabin flew to the United States for top-level discussions.

Upon his arrival in the U.S., Rabin “made it clear he was concerned about Washington’s apparent weakening on the question of an international conference on the Middle East,” according to AIPAC’s weekly newsletter, Near East Report.

“If they are ready to make peace, let’s negotiate [directly],” Rabin was quoted as saying. “If someone wants to undermine any hope of peace, an international conference and bringing in the Syrians is the best way.”

Rabin said that in his meetings with U.S. officials, “I heard about the ‘international umbrella.’ ” That was a phrase that some administration officials had begun using to try to sugarcoat the bitter pill. The idea was that if the conference took place under the “umbrella” of international auspices, it would somehow increase the chances of achieving peace.

Rabin disagreed. “Whenever anyone mentions umbrella, it reminds me of Chamberlain and Munich,” he declared.

Rabin’s statements were pretty remarkable, when you think about it. He had formerly served as Israel’s ambassador in Washington, so he was keenly sensitive to the need not to anger U.S. officials. Yet he publicly leaked the fact that they were using that deceptive “international umbrella” term. Not only did he leak it, he openly criticized it, right there in Washington.

And he didn’t just criticize it, he used the analogy of Chamberlain selling out to Hitler at Munich. For Rabin to stand in Washington and blast the U.S. administration, even invoking a Nazi analogy, was nothing less than astonishing. It really showed what a terrible threat an international conference (or “umbrella”) poses to Israel.

Such a conference, if held today, would consist of a dozen or more Arab and European countries ganging up on Israel and demanding unilateral concessions to the Palestinians. And given reports that the Obama administration wants to see “progress” on this front before the president leaves office, one must assume the U.S. would side with the Arabs and Europeans.

The purpose of the conference would not be to achieve a genuine peace. How do we know? Because the sponsor, France, already declared earlier this year that if the conference failed to produce a Palestinian state, the French would unilaterally recognize one. That’s the goal – not peace, but a Palestinian state, as quickly as possible, no matter the risks to Israel. Which is why the Palestinian Authority’s inciter-in-chief, Mahmoud Abbas, is energetically supporting the conference idea.

During the past year, France has suffered the worst terrorist attacks in the world since 9/11. One would think the French would understand the folly of appeasing Islamic terrorists and oppose creating what would be an overwhelmingly Muslim Palestinian terrorist state. Yet just the opposite has happened.

Why? Because the French are afraid. They are afraid of angering the Muslim world, afraid of more Muslim terrorism. The French believe that since they are defending themselves against ISIS – French planes are bombing Muslim terrorists in Syria and the French police have been shutting down pro-terror mosques – they have to prove they champion Muslim causes. Supporting Palestinian statehood is France’s way of trying to appease the Muslim world.

The international conference proposal is just another way of throwing Israel under the bus. No wonder Israelis – Likud or Labor, right or left – aren’t too excited about that prospect.

Stephen M. Flatow

Trump Once Again Promising to Deal Peace for Israel

Saturday, November 12th, 2016

President Elect Donald J. Trump, possibly the most unpredictable man in American political history, has reiterated his promise to employ his “Art of the Deal” in achieving lasting peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. In an interview to the Wall Street Journal Friday, in which he also said he would leave in place parts of Obamacare, and said he got a “beautiful” letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin upon his victory,  Trump repeated his promise “to help craft a resolution” for the Israel-Palestine situation, which he called “the war that never ends.”

Back in March 2016, candidate Trump told the NY Times regarding the 2-state solution, “I would love to see if a deal could be made. If a deal could be made. Now, I’m not sure it can be made, there’s such unbelievable hatred, there’s such, it’s ingrained, it’s in the blood, the hatred and the distrust, and the horror. But I would love to see if a real deal could be made. Not a deal that you know, lasts for three months, and then everybody starts shooting again. And a big part of that deal, you know, has to be to end terror, we have to end terror.”

Trump then said, “Basically I support a two-state solution on Israel,” with the proviso that “the Palestinian Authority has to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Have to do that. And they have to stop the terror, stop the attacks, stop the teaching of hatred, you know?”

The Trump/Pence campaign website has since then removed all references to the 2-state solution from its “Foreign Policy and Defeating ISIS” positions page. But now, in his WSJ interview, the President Elect confessed to his desire for incorporating what he termed “the ultimate deal,” noting that “as a deal maker, I’d like to do… the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

Walid Phares, a Trump top foreign policy adviser, told BBC Radio on Thursday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is a Trump top agenda item. “He is ready and he will immediately move to try and solve the problem between Palestinian and Israelis,” Phares said. “He told me personally that, as the author of ‘The Art of the Deal,’ it’s not going to be impossible for him to broker a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. At least he’s going to go in that direction and not waste eight years — four years for now — not doing something for the Palestinians and Israelis.”

Somebody should tell Ivanka Trump and Jason Greenblatt as soon as Shabbat is out. Greenblatt on Thursday told Israel’s Army Radio that “Trump thinks Israel is in a difficult situation and must defend herself. Peace must arrive through a bilateral initiative and he has no plan to get involved in it.”

But that was Thursday.

JNi.Media

Trump’s Chief Israel Adviser: ‘He Does Not Define Settlements as Obstacle to Peace’

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

Donald Trump’s chief Israel adviser Jason Greenblatt on Thursday told Army Radio that his boss “does not define settlements as obstacle to peace, and he would prove this by pointing to the situation in the Gaza Strip, where the Jewish settlements were evacuated and peace still has not arrived.”

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Greenblatt suggested that “Trump thinks Israel is in a difficult situation and must defend herself. Peace must arrive through a bilateral initiative and he has no plan to get involved in it.”

Regarding the UNESCO resolution ignoring the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, Greenblat said the President Elect recognizes the right of the Jewish nation to its eternal capital Jerusalem and is disgusted by the resolution.

To keep things balanced, Army Radio also interviewed former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who said, with noted condescension, “If the Israeli right knows what Trump position regarding Israel is, I believe they know more than Trump does.”

Indyk urged Israelis to take the President Elect’s promises with a grain of salt, since his position on Israel “is quite unclear, he says different things to different groups. We simply don’t know.”

According to Indyk, Trump will follow all past presidents who promised to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “He is not the first presidential candidate to promise this, which is why I won’t be surprised if he doesn’t do it,” Indyk said.

JNi.Media

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/trumps-chief-israel-adviser-he-does-not-define-settlements-as-obstacle-to-peace/2016/11/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: