What Palestinian State?

The new round of violence between Israel and terrorist organizations in Gaza reminds us how crazy it would be to declare a Palestinian state next month. Mahmoud Abbas wants to declare both the West Bank and Gaza as sovereign Palestine, but his government does not control the latter at all, and only partially controls the former. Such a declaration would be futile.

Gaza, in a way, is not under anyone's complete control. Hamas may rule over it, but the organization seems unable or unwilling to clamp down on the splinter groups that somehow manage to be even less reasonable than Ismail Haniyeh's band of terrorists.

If Palestinians insist that both the West Bank and Gaza must become part of the State of Palestine simultaneously, then Palestinian independence will have to wait until Gaza is no longer ruled by terrorists unwilling to recognize Israel. That might take a few decades, if not eternity. A "West Bank now, Gaza can join later" approach seems much more realistic. Unfortunately, the Palestinians themselves reject the idea, claiming that Israel is trying to put a wedge between the two parts of the Palestinian people (ignoring the fact that it is the Hamas and Fatah who are responsible for the split).

With this kind of behavior, the Palestinians can kiss their dream of independence goodbye, at least for the foreseeable future.

Israel's "Flightilla" Strategy Worked

I thought the Israeli government was reacting hysterically when it decided to bar pro-Palestinian activists from entering Israel when they landed at Ben Gurion Airport. Apparently, I was wrong. The strategy seemed to work. Most of the activists were not even allowed on the flights, and a few dozen who did manage to reach Israel were detained without too much of a scene, and now await deportation.

World public opinion doesn't seem to care. From what I've seen, international news outlets don't seem to care much for this story, since the Great Chaos never came. Also, activists may have miscalculated the timing, with the establishment of South Sudan and the events in Syria being at the top of foreign news. That, and there may be flotilla-fatigue: after so much attention given to the boats stuck in Greece, the pro-Palestinian "breaking the siege" gimmicks are getting old.

In the end, as much as I hate complementing Netanyahu, I must admit it seems to have been wise not to let the activists in. We don't need Europeans and North Americans confronting the IDF and other Israeli authrorities in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and in places inside Israel, like the Bedouin villages in the Negev. Such clashes would have generated much more bad PR for Israel than the strategy Netanyahu chose, and much more work for our police officers and soldiers.

Pro-Palestinian Activists at Ben-Gurion Airport

Israel is planning to deport hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists who have announced they will be visiting the West Bank via Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport on and around July 8. Five such French and Belgian activists have already been sent back to their countries of origin.

Israel should not treat these activists the same way as it treats the participants of the Gaza-bound flotillas. The West Bank is not Gaza. We have not imposed a blockade on it, and it is controlled by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, not by Hamas or any other terrorist organization. There is no reason for us not to allow foreigners to visit the West Bank, especially since they are not planning on participating in confrontations with Israelis.

I'm not crazy about these activists coming en masse, and I probably don't agree with most of them. I assume many see Israel as a villain and some support BDS. However, those are not reasons to ban them. Sending them back home will only make us look bad in the media. There's nothing to lose by letting them in, either. They're pro-Palestinian as it is, so we have nothing to fear about them getting brainwashed during their stay in the West Bank.

Note (July 9): I no longer agree with this post. Banning the activists turned out to be a great success.

Vicious Attack in Itamar

Terrorists broke into a house in the West Bank settlement of Itamar last night, killing five people: two parents and three of their children, aged 11, 3 and a baby. Three other children managed to escape.

I hope the terrorists who carried out this attack will be found and killed. They do not deserve to ever be released in a future prisoner swap. Killing children in the name of resistance is the most vile form of so-called "freedom fighting". Kids, and civilians in general, should be off limits, even if they are settlers. Only negotiations will remove the settlements from the West Bank, not violence.

Now I'm worried about Jewish terrorism. Some of the more radical elements in the settler movement may want to exact revenge on innocent Palestinian civilians. The IDF should do everything in its power to make sure that doesn't happen.

Netanyahu and the Negev

Ari Shavit, who is considered close to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, has this to say in today's Haaretz (Hebrew/English):

"[Netanyahu] will not give up sovereignty in settlement blocs in the West Bank, he will not compromise on Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and he will try to spare the settlers. On the other hand, as far as land exchange goes, he will display readiness to go far."

This can only mean one thing. Settlers in the West Bank are much more important to him than the citizens in Israel proper, those living in areas that have been recognized as legitimate Israeli territory since 1948. He will give up a lot of Israeli land, possibly uprooting non-settlers, to keep West Bank lands and appease settlers.

He is most likely to give up lands in the Negev. Instead of telling the colonizers of the West Bank to move to Israel's southern region, he will betray the northeastern Negev. Southerners must understand this and advocate for themselves immediately. Make it clear to Netanyahu - if we must choose between Ariel and Ein Gedi, we'll choose Ein Gedi.

Of course, he might not be thinking of the Negev, but rather of Arab-populated towns on the Western side of the green line. That's Lieberman's wet dream - getting as much of the Arab-Israeli population to live in Palestine. The Israeli Arabs, the Palestinians and the international community will never agree to this, and I doubt Netanyahu would even dare bring it up.

Why Boycotting Ariel Isn't the Answer

Here's an opinion piece from today's Haaretz, which I agree with. Boycotting Ariel College will not help anybody, and will not promote peace, just like BDS against Israel proper won't, either.

The voice of despair (Hebrew here)

By Avirama Golan

Academics from many fields, mainly from the exact sciences, signed a declaration last week to the effect that they are unwilling to take part in any academic activity taking place at the college in Ariel, known as the Ariel University Center of Samaria. The reason: Ariel is an illegal settlement in occupied territory, which is flourishing alongside Palestinian communities that are suffering intolerable living conditions and are denied basic human rights.

It's true that the college in Ariel was conceived and born in sin. Like the entire settlement enterprise, it bypassed the law, and in its case the Council for Higher Education, which opposed its establishment for clear academic reasons - it was done at the expense of shrinking the academic pie. With the help of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a unique status was invented for it: "a university center."

The right rushed to label the signers of the declaration with the usual epithets: delusionary, alienated, extremist. However, a perusal of the list reveals that although some of them do sit in the scientific ivory tower and deal with abstract theories (not something to be condemned, of course ), most of them are familiar with Israeli society from up close - and work within it out of profound involvement and commitment.

Still, the declaration arouses unease. Unlike the actors, who were forced by the theaters to perform in Ariel, nobody forces these academics, who are among the most respected scientists and intellectuals in Israel, to teach there. Those who are forced to do so are doctoral students, researchers and assistants; in the absence of job slots at Bar-Ilan University they go to Ariel, as did others who desperately needed a job and were given attractive offers.

These junior academics are like the young couples who moved to the "non-ideological" settlements, because only there one could find apartments and convenient mortgages, plus better and cheaper services than those disintegrating within the Green Line. They are victims of Israel's policy. We can understand that they are unable to sign the declaration.

For that reason, this is a verbal declaration without a price tag, and therein lies its weakness. And this weakness stems from another, which is more regrettable. The signatories are also those who are more exposed than others to the threats of a boycott against Israeli academics by their colleagues abroad. Their declaration seems directed less at the Israeli public and more abroad, at the boycotters, as if to say: We have nothing to do with the settlements. In other words, we are the "good guys," not the "bad guys."

That's a shame. They of all people are very familiar with the nature of the boycott from meeting at international conferences the BDS activists - those urging boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. For the boycotters, the very existence of Israel on what they see as Palestinian territory is illegitimate, and therefore the "university center" in Ariel is a petty matter, which is no different from the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem, just as there's no difference between the colonialism of the late 19th century and the occupation of 1948 and that of 1967.

On the other side of the coin, the settlers are, in effect, making the same claim: Ariel is the "spearhead" of Zionism, like the wall and stockade of the hastily built kibbutzim under the British Mandate, and anyone who claims that the settlers are not legitimate is necessarily including Hanita and Ramat Aviv as well. This dangerous obfuscation, which has turned into government policy, is one of the main causes for the rejection of Israel in recent years.

It is doubtful whether most of the signatories to the declaration are interested in the fact that it pulls the ground from under the feet of Israel in general, including themselves and their work. But the voice that calls from their declaration is the voice of bitter despair - of those who no longer believe that Israel can recover and change, and are turning outward, to the world. That is the source of the unease aroused by the declaration. We can and must expect of these academics, of all people, who are genuinely anxious about the fate and image of Israel, not to despair; not to stop channeling efforts inward, to the society in which they live. Despite the very gloomy present, change, if and when it occurs, can come only from within this society and with their help.

Settlements and the American Tax Code

The New York Times has an interesting and troubling article about American tax-exempt charities used to strengthen settlement building in the West Bank. These right-wingers successfully circumvent both Israeli and American law: Israel-based charities are not allowed to finance activity in settlements that are illegal under Israeli law; donations to foreign charities aren't tax-exempt in the United States; and US-based charities aren't allowed to serve as front groups for foreign charities. Yet, even though these organizations seem to be violating all these things, they are free to operate and not pay a dime to the United States Treasury.

If the United States Congress really cares about Israel, it should change the tax code so that groups would not be allowed to promote illegal settlement building, or at the very least will have to pay taxes, thereby reducing their available money. These outposts are an obstacle to peace, and are not only unjust to Palestinians, but their existence is also against Israel's interests.

Unfortunately, I don't see Congress acting, especially not before the mid-term elections.

Positive Signs in the West Bank

It is well-known that there is an economic boom in the West Bank. Unfortunately, our government isn't going to seize this opportunity - having a peaceful, stable and moderate Palestinian society with something lose if violence breaks out again - to come any closer to peace.

Thomas Friedman writes about the Palestinian economy in today's op-ed in the New York Times. I think the most significant paragraph is this one:

The most important thing President Obama can do when he meets Israel’s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, on July 6 is to nudge him to begin gradually ceding control of major West Bank Palestinian cities to the Palestinian Authority so that Fayyad can show his people, as he puts it, that what he is building is an independent state “not an exercise in adapting to the permanence of occupation” — and so that Israel can test if the new Palestinian security forces really can keep the peace without Israel making nighttime raids. Nothing would strengthen Fayyadism more than that.

Would Netanyahu do such a thing as an interim step? I don't think so, but one hopes Obama might convince him.

"Happy" Anniversary

Today is my blog's 7th birthday. More importantly, it is the 43rd anniversary of the Six Day War (or of Day 2 of 6, to be exact). The war itself was justified, as was taking control over the territories we conquered. It was the colonization and the idea that we'll never leave that were the problem.

At the time, we didn't have any negotiating partners in the Arab world. The Arab League's summit in Khartoum in August 1967 declared "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel", and vowed to continue fighting for the destruction of the Jewish State. If the Israeli leaders of the time had been smart, they would have created a Palestinian autonomy right then and treated the people of the West Bank and Gaza much better than the Jordanians and Egyptians had treated them. They'd rebuild their lives and their economy until the Palestinians would be stable enough to have their own state.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened and we're still in control of the West Bank, and a band of terrorists is in control of Gaza. Despite everybody knowing what the solution should be, nobody seems to be honestly working toward that solution.

Will last week's flotilla fiasco push the Israeli and Palestinian governments in the right direction? I doubt it. Things will probably get much worse now. Israel is on a collision course with Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be considering "breaking the siege" in person, with Turkish navy ships protecting him. Nothing good can come of this.

This was quite a pessimistic post, but let's end it on a lighter note:

The Idiocy of the Chomsky Affair

Prof. Noam Chomsky should have been let into the West Bank. Yes, he's a harsh critic of Israel and yes, he has met with terrorists such as Hizbullah head Hassan Nassrallah, but he isn't a terrorist himself. During his visit to Birzeit University, there's no chance he'd do anything to aid Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other violent group.

My main objection to Chomsky's denial of entry is on the grounds of freedom of speech, but those who don't care about silly things like rights should think about this: Not allowing someone into the Palestinian territories only because of the criticism of Israel he'd voice while there is ridiculous, since many of the locals say much worse things about Israel than he does. Not allowing a person into Israel proper (which wasn't the case with Chomsky, who was planning on visiting the West Bank only) is equally as dumb, since we have so many left wing professors saying terrible things about Israel at Israeli universities every day. Another reason that this is dumb is that a person denied entry like this usually gets more attention than a person who goes in.

Sometimes, denying someone entry is alright. Norman Finkelstein, who is much more extreme than Chomsky and seems committed to the destruction of Israel, was barred from entering Israel a few months ago and I think that in that case it was the correct decision. He's quite the rabble-rouser who could have actually incited Palestinians to act violently against Israel (and he's not against violence). Noam Chomsky ain't no rabble-rouser, and probably neither is the Spanish clown, Ivan Prado, who was denied entry at Ben-Gurion Airport last week.

The Status of Ariel

After years of pressure, especially from Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak has decided to recognize Ariel College's status as a university. Since it is in the West Bank, this is under his authority, rather than that of the Minister of Education. The college has been calling itself the Ariel University Center of Samaria for years. Some say that the decision has few practical implications, but that doesn't matter. Moves like this are against the best interests of the State of Israel. This is the kind of "facts on the ground" stuff that does nothing but anger Palestinians and the international community.

Usually when Israelis talk about land swaps, Ariel is mentioned as one of the settlement blocs that will become part of Israel. Until I saw a map of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's proposal for final borders, I never realized how deep inside the West Bank Ariel is. It would require annexing a lot of Palestinian territory, and giving up a lot of pre-1967 Israeli territory in exchange. That's bad. Ariel should become part of Palestine.

Ariel Sharon's Conspiracy

I was adamantly opposed to the disengagement plan in 2005. I thought the unilateral move would lead to a Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. Did nobody else realize this? Our country's leadership and intelligence officials should have been able to predict this.

Maybe they did. I have a feeling Ariel Sharon wanted to ensure Israeli control of the West Bank. The best way to do this would be by eliminating Israeli public support for any further withdrawals. The evacuation of Jewish settlers had to be as traumatic as possible and terrorists had to take over the strip.

Achieving a traumatic effect during the evacuation worked in two ways. One was more obvious: people who fortified themselves in houses and on rooftops, women and children being dragged out of houses, and instances of little kids wearing orange Stars of David, reminiscent of the yellow Stars of David during the Holocaust. The second method was more subtle. The government office set up to take care of settlers, most of whom left Gaza by the required deadline, was utterly inefficient. Today, three and a half years later, many evacuees still do not have permanent housing, and currently live in "caravillas" (caravan villas) within missile range from Gaza.

Letting Hamas take over Gaza was not very complicated. All that had to be done was leave in such a way that it would seem like we were escaping Hamasnik wrath. Gazans already sympathized with Hamas, so such a move would empower an already popular terrorist organization. Had we reached a deal with the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, the evacuation would have been seen as the fruits of negotiations, not of terror.

Just because Ariel Sharon was hoping for Hamas to rise to power doesn't mean that our current operation in Gaza is not justified. It certainly is. Even if our own government's actions have contributed to the situation, rocket fire into Israel still must be stopped. Keep in mind that the Qassams started coming in 2001, before the disengagement. Hamas would not have stopped the rocket fire even if Gaza would have been given peacefully to the PA, and there is no guarantee that it wouldn't have taken over the territory anyway.

All Is Quiet On the Hebron Front (For Now)

Israeli forces evacuated 250 settlers illegally occupying a house in Hebron yesterday. It was over within an hour and went just about perfectly, as the evacuees were caught by surprise. They thought negotiations with the government may still produce an agreement that would allow them to stay there.

The trouble came later, when Jewish settlers attacked Palestinians all over Hebron. Settlers shot at Palestinians, burned their laundrey and tried to burn their houses. The police and army did nothing to stop them. This is a disgrace. The security forces should have treated rioting Jews as if they were rioting Palestinians. All those who participated in criminal acts against innocent Palestinian civilians must be brought to justice.

It is now quiet in Hebron. It is hard to know how long this will last.

Resettling Settlers

My government frustrates me too often. Defense Minister Ehud Barack has approved the construction of five caravans in the West Bank settlement Tene-Omarim for families who were evacuated from the Gaza Strip in the 2005 disengagement. Dozens of families from the former settlements of Gush Katif in Gaza have moved, or are planning to move, to several other settlements in the West Bank, as well.

This totally violates Israeli promises to the Bush administration. It also violates common sense and the best interests of Israel. Resettling the Gaza settlers in the West Bank only complicates matters for Israel, and will cost us much more when we will eventually have to leave those settlements in a future peace treaty.

Some families that were evacuated from Sinai in 1982 moved to the Gaza Strip. Some of those may have moved to the West Bank after 2005. So, what's next? When the Palestinian State is established in the (probably distant) future, they'll move to the Golan Heights? What is it about Israel within the green line that they dislike so much? Maybe the fact that the government spends less money on people here than in the territories? The rule of law?

Good Riddance

The current Israeli government still sucks, but it is a little bit better than it was last week. Avigdor Lieberman, the Minister of Strategic Threats, has resigned and pulled his semi-fascist party Israel Beytenu (Israel Our Home) out of the coalition.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert should seize the opportunity to show he means business with regard to the peace process. Until now he was only going through the motions while doing nothing on the ground. Here's what he has to do:

• Get rid of illegal settlements. Reject Ehud Barak's agreement with the settlers, whereby they abandon the illegal outposts in exchange for expansion of legal settlements. The government must destroy all illegal settlements and completely freeze the expansion of the settlements which are legal under Israeli law.
• Get rid of the Ministry of Strategic Threats. Not only does the name sound like it is straight out of 1984, but aren't strategic threats something the Defense Ministry is supposed to deal with? Besides, it was only created for Lieberman. Just like he shouldn't be a cabinet member, strategic threats shouldn't be a cabinet ministry.
• Do anything in your power to make the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank as good as possible, so they will see that negotiations rather than violence are the way to a better life. However, don't make the lives of Palestinians in Gaza completely miserable, either. It is both immoral and stupid. It would only bring about more animosity towards Israel.

Annapolis 1786 and 2007

Here's an interesting bit of American history. The Annapolis Convention of 1786, which was convened after the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate for the United States, was a failure. Eight states snubbed it. The five states that showed up did achieve one thing - they called for another convention in Philadelphia, which would eventually produce the constitution and create "a more perfect Union".

Why the history lesson? Because it seems like the Israeli-Arab peace conference scheduled to take place in Annapolis next month is doomed to be snubbed by most Arab states, and quite possibly by the two main parties - Israel and the Palestinians. Every day the newspaper headlines show warnings from different countries warning about things that may doom the Annapolis conference to failure. Israel is complaining about rockets from Gaza and the Egyptians allowing arms and terrorists into Gaza. The Palestinians are complaining about roadblocks within the West Bank. The Egyptians and Jordanians, as well as other Arab countries have issued warnings of their own that if this or that will not be fixed they will not attend. Even the host, the United States, is thinking of postponing the conference.

At this point, it seems Annapolis will fail in achieving a settlement. The most I'm hoping for is a repeat of the 1786 Convention in the form of an agreement to hold another conference, which would be more successful. This can be achieved. The two sides can get as close as possible to an agreement but realize they don't have the political capital at home to get it approved, so they'll announce they've made progress but need another conference, possibly in a few months from now, when the outcomes of the criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will be clearer, and thus the political scene more stable.

The most irritating thing about this ongoing conflict is that there is a consensus between Israelis and Palestinians regarding most of the issues, but two main problems stand - refugees and Jerusalem. Both sides have to be very creative in finding solutions here, because currently the two sides' positions are the exact opposite of one another.