22 oct 2013
From billboards across Nazareth shines the discreet smile of Hanin Zuabi, a controversial Palestinian woman MP who is hoping voters will chose her as mayor of Israel's largest Arab city.
This 44-year-old former math teacher, her black hair cut into a sleek bob, is the only woman running for leadership of the sprawling northern city revered by Christians as Jesus' childhood home.
Zuabi is just one of a growing number of women from Israel's Palestinian minority vying for office in Tuesday's elections across 191 municipalities.
"Running for mayor sends an important message saying that Palestinian women are entering local politics and putting themselves on the political map," she told AFP during campaigning.
Israel's Arab minority has its roots in the 160,000 Palestinians who stayed on their land after the creation of Israel in 1948. Today, they number more than 1.3 million, and often refer to themselves as '48 Palestinians.
"Nazareth needs to have international status," she says, flagging one of the main elements of her platform.
Known as capital of the northern Galilee region, Nazareth has a population of 82,000, 65 percent of which is Muslim and the rest Christian.
Posters and banners are plastered on the city's walls, windows and balconies, each declaring the merits of a particular candidate or list.
Zuabi, an MP with the leftwing Arab-Israeli Balad movement, is competing against four men for the top job, one of whom is the incumbent and clear frontrunner, Ramez Jaraiseh.
Although Zuabi won notoriety within Israel for her participation in a 2010 flotilla of activists trying to break the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip, she has pushed hard to increase the female quota in both local and general elections.
Voters are casting two ballots -- one for mayor and one for a slate of candidates who will serve under him or her. Should there be no mayoral candidate who passes the 40 percent threshold, there will be a second round of voting on Nov. 5.
This year's election is expected to double the number of Arab women serving on local councils.
In the last elections in 2008, 149 Arab women ran in the elections, with only six elected to local office. This year, there are 173, with forecasts predicting about 15 will be elected.
And this year, the women are placed much higher on the local slates.
Women are at the forefront of the municipal election in Sakhnin, another Arab town some 15 miles north of Nazareth, which is famed for its football team which stunned the nation by winning the State Cup in 2004.
Here the billboards feature images of Samar Abu Yunes, a 40-year-old lawyer who is topping the slate fielded by Hadash, the Arab-Jewish socialist party.
"Unfortunately, women have not featured very highly on Hadash's list until now, despite their calls for equality, but I am optimistic at this point," she told AFP.
"I am now at the top of that list so my place is guaranteed on the city council," said the mother of four.
She believes women should be taking a leading role in women's issues, as well as those relating to children in the city of 28,000 people, where participating in the elections mixes family and politics.
Aida Tuma, who ran for parliament with Hadash in 2008 but didn't make it, said the number of women trying or a role in local politics is the result of tough experience and "a lot of serious work" which involved the establishment of The Women's Coalition.
"Five associations made a coalition to support women in the electoral process and to convince parties to put them high up on their lists and this is the first time that Arab women have contested elections in Haifa, Lod and Ramleh," she told AFP.
"We trained those women who were nominated in public speaking, working under pressure and in public appearance, all of which are skills women will need," she said, saying the training sessions had drawn much cross-party support.
This 44-year-old former math teacher, her black hair cut into a sleek bob, is the only woman running for leadership of the sprawling northern city revered by Christians as Jesus' childhood home.
Zuabi is just one of a growing number of women from Israel's Palestinian minority vying for office in Tuesday's elections across 191 municipalities.
"Running for mayor sends an important message saying that Palestinian women are entering local politics and putting themselves on the political map," she told AFP during campaigning.
Israel's Arab minority has its roots in the 160,000 Palestinians who stayed on their land after the creation of Israel in 1948. Today, they number more than 1.3 million, and often refer to themselves as '48 Palestinians.
"Nazareth needs to have international status," she says, flagging one of the main elements of her platform.
Known as capital of the northern Galilee region, Nazareth has a population of 82,000, 65 percent of which is Muslim and the rest Christian.
Posters and banners are plastered on the city's walls, windows and balconies, each declaring the merits of a particular candidate or list.
Zuabi, an MP with the leftwing Arab-Israeli Balad movement, is competing against four men for the top job, one of whom is the incumbent and clear frontrunner, Ramez Jaraiseh.
Although Zuabi won notoriety within Israel for her participation in a 2010 flotilla of activists trying to break the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip, she has pushed hard to increase the female quota in both local and general elections.
Voters are casting two ballots -- one for mayor and one for a slate of candidates who will serve under him or her. Should there be no mayoral candidate who passes the 40 percent threshold, there will be a second round of voting on Nov. 5.
This year's election is expected to double the number of Arab women serving on local councils.
In the last elections in 2008, 149 Arab women ran in the elections, with only six elected to local office. This year, there are 173, with forecasts predicting about 15 will be elected.
And this year, the women are placed much higher on the local slates.
Women are at the forefront of the municipal election in Sakhnin, another Arab town some 15 miles north of Nazareth, which is famed for its football team which stunned the nation by winning the State Cup in 2004.
Here the billboards feature images of Samar Abu Yunes, a 40-year-old lawyer who is topping the slate fielded by Hadash, the Arab-Jewish socialist party.
"Unfortunately, women have not featured very highly on Hadash's list until now, despite their calls for equality, but I am optimistic at this point," she told AFP.
"I am now at the top of that list so my place is guaranteed on the city council," said the mother of four.
She believes women should be taking a leading role in women's issues, as well as those relating to children in the city of 28,000 people, where participating in the elections mixes family and politics.
Aida Tuma, who ran for parliament with Hadash in 2008 but didn't make it, said the number of women trying or a role in local politics is the result of tough experience and "a lot of serious work" which involved the establishment of The Women's Coalition.
"Five associations made a coalition to support women in the electoral process and to convince parties to put them high up on their lists and this is the first time that Arab women have contested elections in Haifa, Lod and Ramleh," she told AFP.
"We trained those women who were nominated in public speaking, working under pressure and in public appearance, all of which are skills women will need," she said, saying the training sessions had drawn much cross-party support.
An Ultra-orthodox Jewish man walks on a street covered with election campaign leaflets in Jerusalem on Oct. 21, 2013
Israelis were Tuesday voting in municipal elections in a poll expected to be shunned by much of the public who see local authorities as tainted by corruption.
Polling stations in 191 municipalities opened their doors at 7.00 a.m to allow Israel's 5,469,041 registered voters to cast their ballots for both a mayor and a list of local council candidates.
A total of 767 candidates are running for mayor while 1,912 are contending for seats on local councils.
At a polling station in a south Jerusalem school, a slow but steady trickle of residents could be seen turning out to cast their ballots, most of them elderly, as activists for the various candidates hovered expectantly outside, an AFP correspondent said.
Turnout figures have traditionally been low in local elections, with only 51.85 percent participating in the last vote in 2008.
And participation this year looks set to be further harmed by a series of corruption scandals plaguing several local authorities.
As revelations continue to emerge from the trial of former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who is fighting bribe-taking allegations in a massive property scandal from his time as Jerusalem mayor, four mayors have been arrested in the past year and four others indicted for serious wrongdoing.
A survey last week showed that 63 percent of Israelis think their local authority is corrupt, 19 percent believe the opposite while only 57 percent of the 501 people interviewed said they planned to vote.
Local elections do not reflect the same political map at a national level, with the vote largely based on personalities. Mayors are often reelected, as was the case in 2008 when two thirds won another term in office.
But in certain cities, like Jerusalem where there is significant tension between religious and secular Israelis, the battle could be close.
Outgoing mayor Nir Barkat, a 54-year-old businessman who made his fortune in hi-tech ventures, is leading the opinion polls and has the backing of secular residents and some religious groups.
His biggest rival is Moshe Leon, an accountant from the ruling rightwing Likud party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has become the candidate of choice for both religious and rightwing voters.
He has the support of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party as well as that of the hardline Yisrael Beitenu of Avigdor Lieberman.
Although Barkat leads by several points, Leon could pull off a surprise win if he manages to rally the 21 percent of undecided voters, many of them from the city's large ultra-Orthodox population which turns out in droves to vote.
Palestinian boycott
More than a quarter of Jerusalem's residents are Palestinians, but they have traditionally boycotted local elections to demonstrate their refusal to accept Israel's seizure and annexation of the eastern sector of the city after the 1967 Six Day War.
Tel Aviv mayor Ron Huldai, a former fighter pilot and Labor party member who brought the city international visibility, cultural growth and economic success, is practically assured reelection. He has already served 15 years.
His most serious rival is Nitzan Horowitz, an MP with the leftwing Meretz party who has campaigned on a platform of environmental issues and gay rights but is trailing far behind in the polls.
Meanwhile, the election looks set to more than double the number of Arab women serving on local councils, according to a forecast by the Women's Coalition, an umbrella group representing Arab women.
In 2008, only six Arab women were elected to local office, but this year, that number is seen rising to 15.
Of the 1,912 candidates running for local office, 173 are Arab women, up from 149 in the previous elections. And this year, the women are placed much higher on the local slates.
In Nazareth, the city with the largest Palestinian population in the country, Haneen Zuabi is running for mayor although polls show she has little chance of winning office.
A member of the leftwing Arab-Israeli Balad party, Zuabi is a firebrand critic of the government who won notoriety for her participation in the 2010 flotilla of activists which tried to break Israel's naval blockade on Gaza.
Israelis were Tuesday voting in municipal elections in a poll expected to be shunned by much of the public who see local authorities as tainted by corruption.
Polling stations in 191 municipalities opened their doors at 7.00 a.m to allow Israel's 5,469,041 registered voters to cast their ballots for both a mayor and a list of local council candidates.
A total of 767 candidates are running for mayor while 1,912 are contending for seats on local councils.
At a polling station in a south Jerusalem school, a slow but steady trickle of residents could be seen turning out to cast their ballots, most of them elderly, as activists for the various candidates hovered expectantly outside, an AFP correspondent said.
Turnout figures have traditionally been low in local elections, with only 51.85 percent participating in the last vote in 2008.
And participation this year looks set to be further harmed by a series of corruption scandals plaguing several local authorities.
As revelations continue to emerge from the trial of former prime minister Ehud Olmert, who is fighting bribe-taking allegations in a massive property scandal from his time as Jerusalem mayor, four mayors have been arrested in the past year and four others indicted for serious wrongdoing.
A survey last week showed that 63 percent of Israelis think their local authority is corrupt, 19 percent believe the opposite while only 57 percent of the 501 people interviewed said they planned to vote.
Local elections do not reflect the same political map at a national level, with the vote largely based on personalities. Mayors are often reelected, as was the case in 2008 when two thirds won another term in office.
But in certain cities, like Jerusalem where there is significant tension between religious and secular Israelis, the battle could be close.
Outgoing mayor Nir Barkat, a 54-year-old businessman who made his fortune in hi-tech ventures, is leading the opinion polls and has the backing of secular residents and some religious groups.
His biggest rival is Moshe Leon, an accountant from the ruling rightwing Likud party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has become the candidate of choice for both religious and rightwing voters.
He has the support of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party as well as that of the hardline Yisrael Beitenu of Avigdor Lieberman.
Although Barkat leads by several points, Leon could pull off a surprise win if he manages to rally the 21 percent of undecided voters, many of them from the city's large ultra-Orthodox population which turns out in droves to vote.
Palestinian boycott
More than a quarter of Jerusalem's residents are Palestinians, but they have traditionally boycotted local elections to demonstrate their refusal to accept Israel's seizure and annexation of the eastern sector of the city after the 1967 Six Day War.
Tel Aviv mayor Ron Huldai, a former fighter pilot and Labor party member who brought the city international visibility, cultural growth and economic success, is practically assured reelection. He has already served 15 years.
His most serious rival is Nitzan Horowitz, an MP with the leftwing Meretz party who has campaigned on a platform of environmental issues and gay rights but is trailing far behind in the polls.
Meanwhile, the election looks set to more than double the number of Arab women serving on local councils, according to a forecast by the Women's Coalition, an umbrella group representing Arab women.
In 2008, only six Arab women were elected to local office, but this year, that number is seen rising to 15.
Of the 1,912 candidates running for local office, 173 are Arab women, up from 149 in the previous elections. And this year, the women are placed much higher on the local slates.
In Nazareth, the city with the largest Palestinian population in the country, Haneen Zuabi is running for mayor although polls show she has little chance of winning office.
A member of the leftwing Arab-Israeli Balad party, Zuabi is a firebrand critic of the government who won notoriety for her participation in the 2010 flotilla of activists which tried to break Israel's naval blockade on Gaza.
21 oct 2013
Two bodies discovered in burnt vehicle in Tayibe
Two bodies were discovered in a vehicle that caught fire in Tayibe. Police officers on scene reported that firearms were found in the vehicle.
Taiybe bodies: Foul play suspected
A police investigation seems to indicate that the two bodies found in a burnt vehicle in Tayibe were murdered under criminal grounds. Police is investigating the option that the two individuals were hit by a drive-by shooting prior to the car being burnt.
Suspicion: Hit and run in Petah Tikva
A bus crashed into a 22-year-old pedestrian in Petah Tikva and did not stop to see after the injured man. The pedestrian was evacuated to Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva by MDA services.
80-year-old woman killed after being hit by car
An 80-year-old woman was killed in Ashkelon after being hit by a car in the city.
At first the woman sustained serious injuries and was taken to the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon where she eventually succumbed to her wounds.
Two bodies discovered in burnt vehicle in Tayibe
Two bodies were discovered in a vehicle that caught fire in Tayibe. Police officers on scene reported that firearms were found in the vehicle.
Taiybe bodies: Foul play suspected
A police investigation seems to indicate that the two bodies found in a burnt vehicle in Tayibe were murdered under criminal grounds. Police is investigating the option that the two individuals were hit by a drive-by shooting prior to the car being burnt.
Suspicion: Hit and run in Petah Tikva
A bus crashed into a 22-year-old pedestrian in Petah Tikva and did not stop to see after the injured man. The pedestrian was evacuated to Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva by MDA services.
80-year-old woman killed after being hit by car
An 80-year-old woman was killed in Ashkelon after being hit by a car in the city.
At first the woman sustained serious injuries and was taken to the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon where she eventually succumbed to her wounds.
20 oct 2013
This handout picture released on October 17, 2013 by the Vatican press office shows Pope Francis (R) speaking with president Mahmoud Abbas during a private audience.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not be meeting with Pope Francis in three days, a diplomatic source said Sunday, after the premier's office had previously said they would.
A statement from Netanyahu's office had said the premier would be "meeting Pope Francis next Wednesday at the Vatican" and with US Secretary of State John Kerry for updates on nuclear talks with Iran and negotiations with the Palestinians in Rome.
But a diplomatic source on Sunday told AFP no such meeting with Francis will be taking place, noting that audiences with the Pope must be arranged sufficiently in advance.
A spokesman for Netanyahu refused to comment on the matter.
This was to be Netanyahu's first meeting with Pope Francis. On Thursday, president Mahmoud Abbas met with the pope and invited him to the Holy Land. Israeli President Shimon Peres also invited Francis during a visit earlier this year.
Francis has said he would like to travel to the Middle East, but the Vatican has not confirmed the trip, despite a report by Israel's Channel 2 television that it will take place in March.
Abbas is the fourth Middle East leader to have met Pope Francis after Peres, Lebanese President Michel Sleiman and King Abdullah of Jordan.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not be meeting with Pope Francis in three days, a diplomatic source said Sunday, after the premier's office had previously said they would.
A statement from Netanyahu's office had said the premier would be "meeting Pope Francis next Wednesday at the Vatican" and with US Secretary of State John Kerry for updates on nuclear talks with Iran and negotiations with the Palestinians in Rome.
But a diplomatic source on Sunday told AFP no such meeting with Francis will be taking place, noting that audiences with the Pope must be arranged sufficiently in advance.
A spokesman for Netanyahu refused to comment on the matter.
This was to be Netanyahu's first meeting with Pope Francis. On Thursday, president Mahmoud Abbas met with the pope and invited him to the Holy Land. Israeli President Shimon Peres also invited Francis during a visit earlier this year.
Francis has said he would like to travel to the Middle East, but the Vatican has not confirmed the trip, despite a report by Israel's Channel 2 television that it will take place in March.
Abbas is the fourth Middle East leader to have met Pope Francis after Peres, Lebanese President Michel Sleiman and King Abdullah of Jordan.
19 oct 2013
A Haaretz poll published on Friday revealed that 63 per cent of the Israeli public favors Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, while frustration with minister of finance Yair Lapid has escalated to 75 per cent, constituting a major setback for his Yesh Atid Party, which won 19 seats in the last elections. The poll reveals an increase in Netanyahu's popularity in comparison to the newspaper's last poll in July when only 56 per cent supported him.
When asked if Netanyahu is meeting the public's expectations, 19 per cent of the respondents believed he did compared to only 6 per cent in July, constituting a sizable leap in the public's satisfaction with the performance of the Likud-Beiteinu coalition.
Meanwhile, satisfaction with minister of finance has tumbled from 51 per cent in July to only 4 per cent in the current poll. The remaining political blocks did not witness any fundamental change from the previous poll.
When asked whom they would vote for if the elections were held today, the Likud-Beiteinu coalition came on the top of the list with an improvement of one seat from the last poll to win 32 seats. Lapid's There is a Future Party dropped from 19 to just 10 seats.
The poll shows stable support for the Jewish home Party led by Naftali Bennett and the Labour Party led by Shelly Yachimovich, with Bennett's Party receiving 15 seats compared to 12 during the last election, and the Labour Party winning 17 seats compared to 15. According to the poll, support for the Arab political parties also parallels the last elections results, when they won 11 seats combined.
When asked if respondents support the current negotiations with the Palestinians, 38 per cent supported halting the negotiations compared to 49 per cent who want them to continue. 58 per cent of the respondents believe Netanyahu has succeeded in dealing with the Iranian file, while 32 per cent of them consider him to have failed.
When asked if Netanyahu is meeting the public's expectations, 19 per cent of the respondents believed he did compared to only 6 per cent in July, constituting a sizable leap in the public's satisfaction with the performance of the Likud-Beiteinu coalition.
Meanwhile, satisfaction with minister of finance has tumbled from 51 per cent in July to only 4 per cent in the current poll. The remaining political blocks did not witness any fundamental change from the previous poll.
When asked whom they would vote for if the elections were held today, the Likud-Beiteinu coalition came on the top of the list with an improvement of one seat from the last poll to win 32 seats. Lapid's There is a Future Party dropped from 19 to just 10 seats.
The poll shows stable support for the Jewish home Party led by Naftali Bennett and the Labour Party led by Shelly Yachimovich, with Bennett's Party receiving 15 seats compared to 12 during the last election, and the Labour Party winning 17 seats compared to 15. According to the poll, support for the Arab political parties also parallels the last elections results, when they won 11 seats combined.
When asked if respondents support the current negotiations with the Palestinians, 38 per cent supported halting the negotiations compared to 49 per cent who want them to continue. 58 per cent of the respondents believe Netanyahu has succeeded in dealing with the Iranian file, while 32 per cent of them consider him to have failed.
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip said they received phone calls on Friday from the Israeli army accusing Hamas of failing to provide for civilians.
"To the residents of the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army warns you against obeying the orders of the terrorist Hamas or having any contact with it," the recipient of one such pre-recorded message quoted it as saying.
"Know that Hamas is spending millions of dollars on tunnels used for hostile and terrorist acts against the state of Israel," it said. "This money should have gone to infrastructure, education and health projects."
The movement's interior ministry said that dozens of Palestinians received the calls.
The Israeli military did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Israeli officials on Sunday said troops had uncovered a tunnel running from Gaza 450 yards into Israel and allegedly intended as a springboard for attacks.
Israeli daily Yedioth Aharonoth said Friday that Israel had known about the tunnel for over a year and let Hamas leaders continue to pour resources into it.
"Sometimes, as part of the war of minds, (Israel) lets them invest money, wrack their brains, waste human resources, and only toward the end of the digging, does it hold up a stop sign," the paper's defense correspondent Alex Fishman wrote.
Friday's phone blitz came on the anniversary of the Oct. 18, 2011 release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons.
Shalit was snatched in June 2006 by a group of Hamas and other armed groups who snuck into Israel through a tunnel and took their prisoner back to Gaza the same way.
Hamas feted the lopsided prisoner swap as a major victory.
"Resistance is our way to destroy the (Israeli) occupation and break its will and is our way to liberate our prisoners and our holy places," it said Friday in a statement to mark the anniversary.
"To the residents of the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army warns you against obeying the orders of the terrorist Hamas or having any contact with it," the recipient of one such pre-recorded message quoted it as saying.
"Know that Hamas is spending millions of dollars on tunnels used for hostile and terrorist acts against the state of Israel," it said. "This money should have gone to infrastructure, education and health projects."
The movement's interior ministry said that dozens of Palestinians received the calls.
The Israeli military did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Israeli officials on Sunday said troops had uncovered a tunnel running from Gaza 450 yards into Israel and allegedly intended as a springboard for attacks.
Israeli daily Yedioth Aharonoth said Friday that Israel had known about the tunnel for over a year and let Hamas leaders continue to pour resources into it.
"Sometimes, as part of the war of minds, (Israel) lets them invest money, wrack their brains, waste human resources, and only toward the end of the digging, does it hold up a stop sign," the paper's defense correspondent Alex Fishman wrote.
Friday's phone blitz came on the anniversary of the Oct. 18, 2011 release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons.
Shalit was snatched in June 2006 by a group of Hamas and other armed groups who snuck into Israel through a tunnel and took their prisoner back to Gaza the same way.
Hamas feted the lopsided prisoner swap as a major victory.
"Resistance is our way to destroy the (Israeli) occupation and break its will and is our way to liberate our prisoners and our holy places," it said Friday in a statement to mark the anniversary.
18 oct 2013
A new report shows that nearly one third of Israelis are at risk of falling below the poverty line, almost twice the rate of poverty risk in the European Union.
According to a report released by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) on Wednesday, about 31 percent of Israelis are close to the poverty line. The current figure is the same as that of 2011, up from 26 percent in 2001.
The report also indicates that some 40 percent of Israeli children are facing the risk of poverty, which is double the rate in Europe.
The rate in 2011 is even higher than in debt-ridden Spain and Greece, where 20 percent of the population was at risk of poverty, although both European countries received an EU emergency aid package to avoid insolvency at the time.
Momi Dahan, an official at Hebrew University in al-Quds (Jerusalem), said the high poverty rate is due to Israel’s constant cuts in welfare benefits over the past 30 years.
He added that the 2013 Israeli austerity budget “continues the current policy of cutting welfare spending, mainly through cuts in children benefits, which now became even lower.”
Many Israelis have been migrating in recent months to Germany and the United States. It is said that the Israelis are leaving Israel on economic grounds.
High taxes and low salaries have had adverse effects on the lives of Israelis, specifically the middle class, in recent years.
Discontented Israelis almost regularly take to the streets in Tel Aviv and other cities to protest against Tel Aviv’s economic plans and the painful austerity measures, which would raise income and value-added taxes and cut welfare benefits.
According to a report released by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) on Wednesday, about 31 percent of Israelis are close to the poverty line. The current figure is the same as that of 2011, up from 26 percent in 2001.
The report also indicates that some 40 percent of Israeli children are facing the risk of poverty, which is double the rate in Europe.
The rate in 2011 is even higher than in debt-ridden Spain and Greece, where 20 percent of the population was at risk of poverty, although both European countries received an EU emergency aid package to avoid insolvency at the time.
Momi Dahan, an official at Hebrew University in al-Quds (Jerusalem), said the high poverty rate is due to Israel’s constant cuts in welfare benefits over the past 30 years.
He added that the 2013 Israeli austerity budget “continues the current policy of cutting welfare spending, mainly through cuts in children benefits, which now became even lower.”
Many Israelis have been migrating in recent months to Germany and the United States. It is said that the Israelis are leaving Israel on economic grounds.
High taxes and low salaries have had adverse effects on the lives of Israelis, specifically the middle class, in recent years.
Discontented Israelis almost regularly take to the streets in Tel Aviv and other cities to protest against Tel Aviv’s economic plans and the painful austerity measures, which would raise income and value-added taxes and cut welfare benefits.
17 oct 2013
|
|
The recent rise in the number of Jews migrating back to Europe or the U-S from Israel has caused concerns among both Israeli rabbis and officials.
Now, an association of Israeli rabbis has banned immigration from Israel. The rabbis say Jews can only leave Israel temporarily for business purposes. Many Israelis have been migrating in recent months to Germany and the U-S. Some say the Israelis are leaving Israel on economic grounds. Recent data show that some 50 percent of them are now living below the poverty line. |
US ambassador to the Israeli entity Dan Shapiro stressed his country's support to "Israel's right to defend itself against the Palestinian terrorist organizations in Gaza." The US ambassador's statement came during his visit to the tunnel discovered running from Gaza to the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 to allegedly carry out resistance attacks.
The United States continues its double standards policy in total bias to the Israeli occupation at the expense of Palestinian rights.
The United States continues its double standards policy in total bias to the Israeli occupation at the expense of Palestinian rights.
15 oct 2013
Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett, who heads the right-wing Jewish Home party, on Monday called the creation of a Palestinian state a delusional act. "The creation of Palestinian state within the State of Israel is a delusional act because it supports replacing coexistence with autonomy," he said according to Israel Radio.
Bennett said that while his party would not stop Justice Minister Tzipi Livni from negotiating with the Palestinian Authority, when the Knesset opens its winter session Monday, it would pass the bill requiring a referendum on any peace deal that would relinquish "sovereign Israeli territory."
Bennett also said that his party insists that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state in order to prevent the possibility of Israeli Arabs demanding another state in Israeli territory.
Bennett said that while his party would not stop Justice Minister Tzipi Livni from negotiating with the Palestinian Authority, when the Knesset opens its winter session Monday, it would pass the bill requiring a referendum on any peace deal that would relinquish "sovereign Israeli territory."
Bennett also said that his party insists that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state in order to prevent the possibility of Israeli Arabs demanding another state in Israeli territory.
14 oct 2013
By Nicola Nasser
More than two and a half years on, Israel's purported neutrality in the Syrian conflict and the United State's fanfare rhetoric urging a "regime change" in Damascus were abruptly cut short to unveil that the Israeli factor has been all throughout the conflict the main concern of both countries.
All their media and political focus on "democracy versus dictatorship" and on the intervention of the international community on the basis of a "responsibility to protect" to avert the exacerbating "humanitarian crisis" in Syria was merely a focus intended to divert the attention of the world public opinion away from their real goal, i.e. to safeguard the security of Israel.
Their "Plan A" was to enforce a change in the Syrian regime as their "big prize" and replace it by another less threatening and more willing to strike a "peace deal" with Israel and in case of failure, which is the case as developed now, their "Plan B" was to pursue a "lesser prize" by disarming Syria of its chemical weapons to deprive it of its strategic defensive deterrence against the Israeli overwhelming arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Their "Plan A" proved a failure, but their "Plan B" was a success.
However, the fact that the Syrian humanitarian crisis continues unabated with the raging non – stop fighting while the United States is gradually coming to terms with Syria's major allies in Russia and Iran as a prelude to recognizing the "legitimacy" of the status quo in Syria is a fact that shutters whatever remains of U.S. credibility in the conflict.
President Barak Obama, addressing the UN General Assembly on last September 24, had this justification: "Let us remember that this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We are no longer in a Cold War. There's no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists. I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution."
This U – turn shift by the U.S. dispels any remaining doubts that the U.S. ever cared about the Syrian people and what Obama called their "well being."
The U.S. pronounced commitment to a "political solution" through co-sponsoring with Russia the convening of a "Geneva – 2" conference is compromised by its purported inability to unite even the "opposition" that was created and sponsored by the U.S. itself and the "friends of Syria" it leads and to rein in the continued fueling of the armed conflict with arms, money and logistics by its regional Turkish and Gulf Arabs allies, which undermines any political solution and render the very convening of a "Geneva – 2" conference a guess of anybody.
Israeli "Punishment"
Meanwhile, Israel's neutrality was shuttered by none other than its President Shimon Peres.
Speaking at the 40th commemoration of some three thousand Israeli soldiers who were killed in the 1973 war with Syria and Egypt, Peres revealed unarguably that his state has been the major beneficiary of the Syrian conflict.
Peres said: "Today" the Syrian President Basher al-Assad "is punished for his refusal to compromise" with Israel and "the Syrian people pay for it."
When it became stark clear by the latest developments that there will be no "regime change" in Syria nor there will be a post- Assad "Day After" and that the U.S. major guarantor of Israel's survival has made, or is about to make, a "U-turn" in its policy vis-à-vis the Syrian conflict to exclude the military solution as "unacceptable," in the words of Secretary of State John Kerry on this October 6, Israel got impatient and could not hide anymore the Israeli factor in the conflict.
On last September 17, major news wires headlined their reports, "In public shift, Israel calls for Assad's fall," citing a report published by the Israeli daily the Jerusalem Post, which quoted Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, as saying: "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran."
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren added.
And that's really the crux of the Syrian conflict: Dismantling this "arc" has been all throughout the conflict the pronounced strategy of the U.S.-led so-called "Friends of Syria," who are themselves the friends of Israel.
The goal of this strategy has been all throughout the conflict to change the regime of what Oren called the Syrian "keystone in that arc," which is supported by a pro-Iran government in Iraq as well as by the Palestinian liberation movements resisting the more than sixty decades of Israeli military occupation, or otherwise to deplete Syria's resources, infrastructure and power until it has no choice other than the option of yielding unconditionally to the Israeli terms and conditions of what Peres called a "compromise" with Israel as a precondition for the return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
Syria the Odd Number
This strategic goal was smoke-screened by portraying the conflict first as one of a popular uprising turned into an armed rebellion against a dictatorship, then as a sectarian "civil war," third as a proxy war in an Arab-Iranian and a Sunni-Shiite historical divide, fourth as a battle ground of conflicting regional and international geopolitics, but the Israeli factor has been all throughout the core of the conflict.
Otherwise why should the U.S.-led "Friends of Syria & Israel" care about the ruling regime in a country that is not abundant in oil and gas, the "free" flow of which was repeatedly pronounced a "vital" interest of the United States, or one of what Obama in his UN speech called his country's "core interests;" the security of Israel is another "vital" or "core" interest, which, in his words, "The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure."
The end of the Cold War opened a "window of opportunities" to build on the Egyptian – Israel peace treaty, according to a study by the University of Oslo in 1997. A peace agreement was signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Hebrew state in 1993 followed by an Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty the year after. During its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 Israel tried unsuccessfully to impose on the country a similar treaty had it not been for the Syrian "influence," which aborted and prevented any such development ever since.
Syria remains the odd number in the Arab peace - making belt around Israel; no comprehensive peace is possible without Syria; Damascus holds the key even to the survival of the Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian peace accords with Israel. Syria will not hand over this key without the withdrawal of the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) from Syrian and other Arab lands and a "just" solution of the "Palestinian question."
This has been a Syrian national strategy long before the Pan-Arab Baath party and the al-Assad dynasty came to power.
Therefore, the U.S. and Israeli "Plan A" will remain on both countries' agendas, pending more forthcoming geopolitical environment.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
More than two and a half years on, Israel's purported neutrality in the Syrian conflict and the United State's fanfare rhetoric urging a "regime change" in Damascus were abruptly cut short to unveil that the Israeli factor has been all throughout the conflict the main concern of both countries.
All their media and political focus on "democracy versus dictatorship" and on the intervention of the international community on the basis of a "responsibility to protect" to avert the exacerbating "humanitarian crisis" in Syria was merely a focus intended to divert the attention of the world public opinion away from their real goal, i.e. to safeguard the security of Israel.
Their "Plan A" was to enforce a change in the Syrian regime as their "big prize" and replace it by another less threatening and more willing to strike a "peace deal" with Israel and in case of failure, which is the case as developed now, their "Plan B" was to pursue a "lesser prize" by disarming Syria of its chemical weapons to deprive it of its strategic defensive deterrence against the Israeli overwhelming arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Their "Plan A" proved a failure, but their "Plan B" was a success.
However, the fact that the Syrian humanitarian crisis continues unabated with the raging non – stop fighting while the United States is gradually coming to terms with Syria's major allies in Russia and Iran as a prelude to recognizing the "legitimacy" of the status quo in Syria is a fact that shutters whatever remains of U.S. credibility in the conflict.
President Barak Obama, addressing the UN General Assembly on last September 24, had this justification: "Let us remember that this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We are no longer in a Cold War. There's no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists. I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution."
This U – turn shift by the U.S. dispels any remaining doubts that the U.S. ever cared about the Syrian people and what Obama called their "well being."
The U.S. pronounced commitment to a "political solution" through co-sponsoring with Russia the convening of a "Geneva – 2" conference is compromised by its purported inability to unite even the "opposition" that was created and sponsored by the U.S. itself and the "friends of Syria" it leads and to rein in the continued fueling of the armed conflict with arms, money and logistics by its regional Turkish and Gulf Arabs allies, which undermines any political solution and render the very convening of a "Geneva – 2" conference a guess of anybody.
Israeli "Punishment"
Meanwhile, Israel's neutrality was shuttered by none other than its President Shimon Peres.
Speaking at the 40th commemoration of some three thousand Israeli soldiers who were killed in the 1973 war with Syria and Egypt, Peres revealed unarguably that his state has been the major beneficiary of the Syrian conflict.
Peres said: "Today" the Syrian President Basher al-Assad "is punished for his refusal to compromise" with Israel and "the Syrian people pay for it."
When it became stark clear by the latest developments that there will be no "regime change" in Syria nor there will be a post- Assad "Day After" and that the U.S. major guarantor of Israel's survival has made, or is about to make, a "U-turn" in its policy vis-à-vis the Syrian conflict to exclude the military solution as "unacceptable," in the words of Secretary of State John Kerry on this October 6, Israel got impatient and could not hide anymore the Israeli factor in the conflict.
On last September 17, major news wires headlined their reports, "In public shift, Israel calls for Assad's fall," citing a report published by the Israeli daily the Jerusalem Post, which quoted Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, as saying: "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran."
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren added.
And that's really the crux of the Syrian conflict: Dismantling this "arc" has been all throughout the conflict the pronounced strategy of the U.S.-led so-called "Friends of Syria," who are themselves the friends of Israel.
The goal of this strategy has been all throughout the conflict to change the regime of what Oren called the Syrian "keystone in that arc," which is supported by a pro-Iran government in Iraq as well as by the Palestinian liberation movements resisting the more than sixty decades of Israeli military occupation, or otherwise to deplete Syria's resources, infrastructure and power until it has no choice other than the option of yielding unconditionally to the Israeli terms and conditions of what Peres called a "compromise" with Israel as a precondition for the return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights.
Syria the Odd Number
This strategic goal was smoke-screened by portraying the conflict first as one of a popular uprising turned into an armed rebellion against a dictatorship, then as a sectarian "civil war," third as a proxy war in an Arab-Iranian and a Sunni-Shiite historical divide, fourth as a battle ground of conflicting regional and international geopolitics, but the Israeli factor has been all throughout the core of the conflict.
Otherwise why should the U.S.-led "Friends of Syria & Israel" care about the ruling regime in a country that is not abundant in oil and gas, the "free" flow of which was repeatedly pronounced a "vital" interest of the United States, or one of what Obama in his UN speech called his country's "core interests;" the security of Israel is another "vital" or "core" interest, which, in his words, "The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure."
The end of the Cold War opened a "window of opportunities" to build on the Egyptian – Israel peace treaty, according to a study by the University of Oslo in 1997. A peace agreement was signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Hebrew state in 1993 followed by an Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty the year after. During its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 Israel tried unsuccessfully to impose on the country a similar treaty had it not been for the Syrian "influence," which aborted and prevented any such development ever since.
Syria remains the odd number in the Arab peace - making belt around Israel; no comprehensive peace is possible without Syria; Damascus holds the key even to the survival of the Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian peace accords with Israel. Syria will not hand over this key without the withdrawal of the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) from Syrian and other Arab lands and a "just" solution of the "Palestinian question."
This has been a Syrian national strategy long before the Pan-Arab Baath party and the al-Assad dynasty came to power.
Therefore, the U.S. and Israeli "Plan A" will remain on both countries' agendas, pending more forthcoming geopolitical environment.
* Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
13 oct 2013
|
|
New reports suggest that more and more Jews are opting to leave Israel for countries like Germany in search of a more affordable cost of living.
But Israeli officials are not satisfied with their decision. One Israeli minister has even described the move as throwing Israel into the garbage. |
10 oct 2013
Heated arguments erupted between Palestinian and Israeli delegations in meetings during the 129th summit of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva, speaker of Fatah-affiliated lawmakers official Azzam al-Ahmad said Wednesday.
Al-Ahmad told a local Palestinian radio station Wednesday that the Israeli delegation exploded with anger when the Palestinian and the Moroccan delegations suggested including the issues of Jerusalem and settlement activities on a meeting agenda.
He added that the speaker of the Israeli delegation started to shout and interrupted speakers in a way that angered international and European delegations.
He said that President Mahmoud Abbas “agreed to resume peace negotiations while settlement activities were ongoing,” added al-Ahmad. The Israeli delegation eventually withdrew from the meeting.
Al-Ahmad said he responded to the Israeli official's claims by highlighting that the Palestinian Authority “informed the Inter-Parliamentary Union that the Palestinian side agreed to resume negotiations only after receiving an official message from the United States confirming that all aspects of settlement activities are illegal.”
Al-Ahmad added that heated arguments broke out as well during meetings of the Middle East Committee of the IPU between the Israeli and the Venezuelan delegations, which ended with withdrawal of the Israeli delegation.
Al-Ahmad told a local Palestinian radio station Wednesday that the Israeli delegation exploded with anger when the Palestinian and the Moroccan delegations suggested including the issues of Jerusalem and settlement activities on a meeting agenda.
He added that the speaker of the Israeli delegation started to shout and interrupted speakers in a way that angered international and European delegations.
He said that President Mahmoud Abbas “agreed to resume peace negotiations while settlement activities were ongoing,” added al-Ahmad. The Israeli delegation eventually withdrew from the meeting.
Al-Ahmad said he responded to the Israeli official's claims by highlighting that the Palestinian Authority “informed the Inter-Parliamentary Union that the Palestinian side agreed to resume negotiations only after receiving an official message from the United States confirming that all aspects of settlement activities are illegal.”
Al-Ahmad added that heated arguments broke out as well during meetings of the Middle East Committee of the IPU between the Israeli and the Venezuelan delegations, which ended with withdrawal of the Israeli delegation.
9 oct 2013
Hermes 450 drone
For third time in six months , an Israel unmanned aerial vehicle crashed into the sea about two kilometers from Palmahim kibbutz beach on Tuesday. The cause of the crash remains unclear, Haaretz reported. In July, the Israel military forces intentionally crashed a drone of the same kind, after the aircraft displayed signs of a technical malfunction.
A similar incident occurred in May, when the IMF intentionally downed one of its own Heron-class unmanned aerial vehicles, known as "Shoval," in the sea following an engine malfunction.
IMF officials explained at the time that the decision to down the UAV was made due to concerns that control over the drone would be lost, and it might crash into populated areas.
In January 2012, a different type of a Heron-class drone, known as "Eitan," crashed in southern Israel while on a test flight. The flight was testing new navigation components in the UAV. A preliminary investigation indicated that the accident was caused by a technical malfunction, Haaretz reported.
For third time in six months , an Israel unmanned aerial vehicle crashed into the sea about two kilometers from Palmahim kibbutz beach on Tuesday. The cause of the crash remains unclear, Haaretz reported. In July, the Israel military forces intentionally crashed a drone of the same kind, after the aircraft displayed signs of a technical malfunction.
A similar incident occurred in May, when the IMF intentionally downed one of its own Heron-class unmanned aerial vehicles, known as "Shoval," in the sea following an engine malfunction.
IMF officials explained at the time that the decision to down the UAV was made due to concerns that control over the drone would be lost, and it might crash into populated areas.
In January 2012, a different type of a Heron-class drone, known as "Eitan," crashed in southern Israel while on a test flight. The flight was testing new navigation components in the UAV. A preliminary investigation indicated that the accident was caused by a technical malfunction, Haaretz reported.
4 oct 2013
Israel said on Thursday it plans to run for a rotating seat on the UN Security Council for the time ever for 2019-2020, although UN diplomats said it will not be easy for the Jewish state to win.
"We're going all out to win," Israel's UN Ambassador Ron Prosor told Reuters. "It's about time."
Winning a Security Council seat requires a two-thirds majority in the 193-nation General Assembly. Candidates are proposed by the five regional groups but election to the council is done by the full assembly.
Prosor said Israel will be vying against Germany and Belgium for two seats allotted to the "Western European and Others Group." Technically Israel should be a member of the Asia-Pacific Group along with the other states in the Middle East. But predominantly Muslim states blocked its admission to that group.
In 2000 Israel was admitted to the Western European and Others Group, which includes the United States, on a temporary basis. In 2004 its membership in that group was permanently renewed.
Israel has occasionally held posts as vice president of the UN General Assembly but it has never been a member of the Security Council, the most powerful and prestigious body at the United Nations with the authority to impose sanctions or authorize the use of military force to enforce its decisions.
Securing a council seat will not be easy, UN diplomats say. Most members of the 120 non-aligned bloc of developing nations are either cool or openly hostile towards Israel. General Assembly votes on issues related to Israel and the Palestinians are usually unfavorable for the Israelis.
In November 2012, a General Assembly vote on a Palestinian bid to gain implicit recognition of statehood by upgrading its UN observer status to that of "non-member state" - something the Israelis strongly opposed - highlighted how isolated Israel can be at the United Nations. There were 138 votes in favor of the Palestinian request, 41 abstentions and only nine against.
There are 10 rotating Security Council members who serve for two years at a time. Each year five rotating members are replaced. The five permanent veto-wielding members are the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.
General Assembly elections for next year's Security Council will be on Oct. 17.
"We're going all out to win," Israel's UN Ambassador Ron Prosor told Reuters. "It's about time."
Winning a Security Council seat requires a two-thirds majority in the 193-nation General Assembly. Candidates are proposed by the five regional groups but election to the council is done by the full assembly.
Prosor said Israel will be vying against Germany and Belgium for two seats allotted to the "Western European and Others Group." Technically Israel should be a member of the Asia-Pacific Group along with the other states in the Middle East. But predominantly Muslim states blocked its admission to that group.
In 2000 Israel was admitted to the Western European and Others Group, which includes the United States, on a temporary basis. In 2004 its membership in that group was permanently renewed.
Israel has occasionally held posts as vice president of the UN General Assembly but it has never been a member of the Security Council, the most powerful and prestigious body at the United Nations with the authority to impose sanctions or authorize the use of military force to enforce its decisions.
Securing a council seat will not be easy, UN diplomats say. Most members of the 120 non-aligned bloc of developing nations are either cool or openly hostile towards Israel. General Assembly votes on issues related to Israel and the Palestinians are usually unfavorable for the Israelis.
In November 2012, a General Assembly vote on a Palestinian bid to gain implicit recognition of statehood by upgrading its UN observer status to that of "non-member state" - something the Israelis strongly opposed - highlighted how isolated Israel can be at the United Nations. There were 138 votes in favor of the Palestinian request, 41 abstentions and only nine against.
There are 10 rotating Security Council members who serve for two years at a time. Each year five rotating members are replaced. The five permanent veto-wielding members are the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.
General Assembly elections for next year's Security Council will be on Oct. 17.
2 oct 2013
Israeli deputy army minister, Danny Danon, said the Middle East peace process "will soon be recognised as definitively dead." Danon told the Financial Times that "if the Israelis were surprised by an agreement, it would require not only a referendum, something Netanyahu has committed to do, but fresh elections too.
"If you reach the point of having an agreement which includes giving away major parts of the land of (Israel), we will have to go for general elections, no matter what," he said.
Danon espouses what he describes as a "three-state solution": a regional agreement between (Israel), Jordan and Egypt that would give Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip some rights in those three countries, but no distinct state.
"My goal is to get hold of the majority of the land with the minimum amount of the Palestinian population," Mr Danon said. "This is the starting point for the negotiations when we sit down with the regional partners and the Palestinians."
"If you reach the point of having an agreement which includes giving away major parts of the land of (Israel), we will have to go for general elections, no matter what," he said.
Danon espouses what he describes as a "three-state solution": a regional agreement between (Israel), Jordan and Egypt that would give Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip some rights in those three countries, but no distinct state.
"My goal is to get hold of the majority of the land with the minimum amount of the Palestinian population," Mr Danon said. "This is the starting point for the negotiations when we sit down with the regional partners and the Palestinians."
28 sept 2013
IAF fighter jets scrambled at unidentified object
Two Air Force fighter jets were scrambled from the Hazor base in central Israel following the detection of an unidentified aircraft. A check ruled out hostile infiltration into Israel's airspace. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit refused to comment.
Two Air Force fighter jets were scrambled from the Hazor base in central Israel following the detection of an unidentified aircraft. A check ruled out hostile infiltration into Israel's airspace. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit refused to comment.
27 sept 2013
Peace in the Middle East? Not if Benjamin Netanyahu has anything to say about it.
On Monday, Sept. 30, U.S. President Barack Obama will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for the first time in 18 months. Much has changed in the intervening period -- both leaders have been re-elected, Obama has made his first visit as president to Israel, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been relaunched, and that rather pragmatic-sounding Hasan Rouhani chap has been elected president in Iran.
In what might be called an anti-"Asia pivot" speech, Obama announced to the U.N. General Assembly this week that the United States is engaged in the Middle East "for the long haul" and that "in the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict."
That message will be viewed as a mixed bag in Jerusalem, which is keen for a greater American footprint in the region but is less enthusiastic about the idea of peacemaking with the Palestinians and deal-making with the Iranians taking top billing. For that reason, the upcoming White House meeting will likely find the two leaders back on familiar terrain, more focused on testing each other's underlying intentions than on working together as close allies.
The U.S. president is something of an open book, but Netanyahu's approach requires a little more interpretation and context. Too much of that analysis has been consistently wrong, and thankfully so. If prominent Netanyahu watchers had gotten it right, we would be marking the second or third anniversaries of Israeli bombing campaigns against Iran.
Netanyahu is indeed back in threatening mode. His latest rhetorical flourish is to quote Hillel's ancient maxim "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" -- an upgrade of his previous refrain regarding Israel's "right to defend itself by itself." That language is being widely interpreted by Israeli commentators as a reaffirmation of Israel's willingness to strike Iran alone if Netanyahu's red lines on Iran's nuclear program are deemed to have been crossed.
This debate has taken on a new urgency given the diplomatic opening seemingly created by the election of Rouhani. It is no secret that Netanyahu has been dragged out of his comfort zone by the possibility of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aggressive and insulting behavior made him a convenient adversary for Israel; Rouhani and his diplomatic team, notably polished Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, present a challenge of a very different order of magnitude.
Under these new circumstances, the nagging question for Washington policymakers is whether Netanyahu's tough line on engaging the new Iranian reality is the wise approach of an understandably cautious and concerned Israeli leader, or whether this Israeli pushback is indicative of a more intransigent stance. The pushback has been nothing if not relentless: Netanyahu has called for an intensification of sanctions and military threats, has depicted Iran's new leader as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and has heaped scorn on the Rosh Hashanah greetings sent to the Jewish world from Iranian leaders' Twitter accounts. The Israeli Embassy in Washington even crafted a fake LinkedIn account for Rouhani, which listed his skills as "weapons of mass destruction" and "illusion."
Sadly, the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not just about Israel's leader driving a hard but realistic bargain. If Netanyahu's principal concern is really the nuclear file, he should be able to come to terms with the fact that a negotiated outcome offers the best long-term safeguard against Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The most that military strikes could achieve would be a short-term delay of Iran's ability to weaponize its nuclear program -- a decision that Iran has anyway not yet made, according to the consensus among Western intelligence agencies. A strike would also create a greater incentive for Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.
At the moment, however, Netanyahu is signaling that there is no realistic deal that would be acceptable to Israel. For instance, a consensus exists among experts and Western officials that Iran's right to enrich uranium -- in a limited manner and under international supervision -- for its civilian nuclear energy program will be a necessary part of any agreement. Netanyahu rejects this.
If Iran is willing to cut a deal that effectively provides a guarantee against a weaponization of its nuclear program, and that deal is acceptable to the president of the United States of America, why would Netanyahu not take yes for an answer?
The reason lies in Netanyahu's broader view of Israel's place in the region: The Israeli premier simply does not want an Islamic Republic of Iran that is a relatively independent and powerful actor. Israel has gotten used to a degree of regional hegemony and freedom of action -- notably military action -- that is almost unparalleled globally, especially for what is, after all, a rather small power. Israelis are understandably reluctant to give up any of that.
Israel's leadership seeks to maintain the convenient reality of a neighboring region populated by only two types of regimes. The first type is regimes with a degree of dependence on the United States, which necessitates severe limitations on challenging Israel (including diplomatically). The second type is regimes that are considered beyond the pale by the United States and as many other global actors as possible, and therefore unable to do serious damage to Israeli interests.
Israel's leadership would consider the emergence of a third type of regional actor -- one that is not overly deferential to Washington but also is not boycotted, and that even boasts a degree of economic, political, and military weight -- a deeply undesirable development. What's more, this threatens to become a not-uncommon feature of the Middle East: Just look at Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or Egypt before the July 3 coup, or an Iran that gets beyond its nuclear dispute and starts to normalize its relations with the West.
There are other reasons for Netanyahu to oppose any developments that would allow Iran to break free of its isolation and win acceptance as an important regional actor with which the West engages. The current standoff is an extremely useful way of distracting attention from the Palestinian issue, and a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran would likely shine more of a spotlight on Israel's own nuclear weapons capacity. But the key point to understand in interpreting Netanyahu's policy is this: While Obama has put aside changing the nature of the Islamic Republic's political system, Israel's leader is all about a commitment to regime change -- or failing that, regime isolation -- in Tehran. And he will pursue that goal even at the expense of a workable deal on the nuclear file.
Netanyahu's maximalism does not represent a wall-to-wall consensus within the Israeli establishment. There is another Israeli strand of thinking -- notably among retired security elites like former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin -- that holds that the challenges posed by Iran can be managed in different ways at different times. Others inside Israel's establishment acknowledge that the current period of unchallenged hegemony is unsustainable and that adjustments will have to be made. Some understand the efficacy of having an Iran more tied into the international system rather than isolated from it -- a deal on Iran's nuclear program, for instance, could also have its uses in limiting the maneuver room of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
But Netanyahu has rejected these positions. The prime minister is nothing if not consistent: He was similarly intractable when the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League put forth pragmatic proposals. While the PLO's leadership accepts Israel's existence, the 1967 lines, and an accommodation on Israeli settlements (including in East Jerusalem) by way of land swaps, Netanyahu has shifted the goal posts -- rejecting the 1967 lines and refusing to take yes for an answer. With the Arab League's "Arab Peace Initiative" offering recognition of Israel and comprehensive peace in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories, Netanyahu is again following this pattern of rejectionism.
Netanyahu is a deeply ideological leader with an unshakeable belief in a Greater Israel and regional hegemony. If this reading of him is accurate, it bodes ill for Israel's reaction to the nascent diplomacy between the United States and Iran. In the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu will likely dedicate himself to derailing any prospect for a diplomatic breakthrough.
In that mission he is, of course, not alone. He will be joined by American hawks and neoconservatives, Republicans who will oppose Obama on anything, and some Democrats with a more Israel-centric bent. Their efforts will be concentrated on escalating threats against Iran, increasing sanctions, and raising the bar to an impossibly high place on the terms of a nuclear deal. All this will serve -- intentionally, one has to assume -- to strengthen hard-liners in Tehran who are equally opposed to a deal.
Of course, the Iranian forces ranged against Rouhani's pragmatism do not need encouragement from Washington. But absent encouragement, they are not in the ascendancy -- and crucially, Rouhani appears to have the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for his diplomatic outreach. Currently, the difference among the three capitals -- Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem -- is that only in Jerusalem does a representative of the hard-line faction, rather than the pragmatic camp, hold the most senior political office.
If diplomacy survives this initial onslaught and the contours of a deal take shape, Netanyahu will face the choice that he has most wanted to avoid throughout his years in office: to acquiesce to a Western rapprochement with Iran or to stand alone in diplomatic and, presumably, military defiance. The ideologue in Netanyahu will counsel defiance, while the risk-averse politician in him will recommend a climb-down.
If Netanyahu wants a way out from bombing Iran, he could simply declare victory. It would be an easy speech to write: Bibi would declare that it was only Israeli pressure for sanctions and a credible military threat that created the conditions for a nuclear deal with Iran. Even if Netanyahu is wrong on the details regarding sanctions and threats -- they have often hindered, not advanced, progress toward a deal -- the desired result will have been achieved.
Netanyahu is not under Israeli public pressure to strike militarily or reject a deal. His security establishment is divided but wary of going solo, and even his cabinet is split on the issue. And this is why Monday's White House meeting matters so much: While Obama retreated on the Palestinian issue when Netanyahu stared him down -- first on settlements and then on the issue of using the 1967 borders as the basis for a deal -- on Iran they have so far deferred their disagreements. But that option may be reaching its expiration date. The Iran issue is now more urgent, and if progress is to be made on either of the priorities Obama highlighted at the United Nations -- Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- the president will need to become defter at outmaneuvering his Israeli guest.
Netanyahu's calculations and his actions will be affected by clear signals from Washington, Europe, and elsewhere to stop undermining diplomacy, and making the case for the unrivaled benefits of a deal with Iran. After decades spent boxing in Tehran, the interests of global and regional security -- and even of Israel itself -- may now require a short, sharp burst of boxing in Bibi.
On Monday, Sept. 30, U.S. President Barack Obama will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for the first time in 18 months. Much has changed in the intervening period -- both leaders have been re-elected, Obama has made his first visit as president to Israel, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been relaunched, and that rather pragmatic-sounding Hasan Rouhani chap has been elected president in Iran.
In what might be called an anti-"Asia pivot" speech, Obama announced to the U.N. General Assembly this week that the United States is engaged in the Middle East "for the long haul" and that "in the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict."
That message will be viewed as a mixed bag in Jerusalem, which is keen for a greater American footprint in the region but is less enthusiastic about the idea of peacemaking with the Palestinians and deal-making with the Iranians taking top billing. For that reason, the upcoming White House meeting will likely find the two leaders back on familiar terrain, more focused on testing each other's underlying intentions than on working together as close allies.
The U.S. president is something of an open book, but Netanyahu's approach requires a little more interpretation and context. Too much of that analysis has been consistently wrong, and thankfully so. If prominent Netanyahu watchers had gotten it right, we would be marking the second or third anniversaries of Israeli bombing campaigns against Iran.
Netanyahu is indeed back in threatening mode. His latest rhetorical flourish is to quote Hillel's ancient maxim "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" -- an upgrade of his previous refrain regarding Israel's "right to defend itself by itself." That language is being widely interpreted by Israeli commentators as a reaffirmation of Israel's willingness to strike Iran alone if Netanyahu's red lines on Iran's nuclear program are deemed to have been crossed.
This debate has taken on a new urgency given the diplomatic opening seemingly created by the election of Rouhani. It is no secret that Netanyahu has been dragged out of his comfort zone by the possibility of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aggressive and insulting behavior made him a convenient adversary for Israel; Rouhani and his diplomatic team, notably polished Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, present a challenge of a very different order of magnitude.
Under these new circumstances, the nagging question for Washington policymakers is whether Netanyahu's tough line on engaging the new Iranian reality is the wise approach of an understandably cautious and concerned Israeli leader, or whether this Israeli pushback is indicative of a more intransigent stance. The pushback has been nothing if not relentless: Netanyahu has called for an intensification of sanctions and military threats, has depicted Iran's new leader as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and has heaped scorn on the Rosh Hashanah greetings sent to the Jewish world from Iranian leaders' Twitter accounts. The Israeli Embassy in Washington even crafted a fake LinkedIn account for Rouhani, which listed his skills as "weapons of mass destruction" and "illusion."
Sadly, the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not just about Israel's leader driving a hard but realistic bargain. If Netanyahu's principal concern is really the nuclear file, he should be able to come to terms with the fact that a negotiated outcome offers the best long-term safeguard against Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The most that military strikes could achieve would be a short-term delay of Iran's ability to weaponize its nuclear program -- a decision that Iran has anyway not yet made, according to the consensus among Western intelligence agencies. A strike would also create a greater incentive for Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.
At the moment, however, Netanyahu is signaling that there is no realistic deal that would be acceptable to Israel. For instance, a consensus exists among experts and Western officials that Iran's right to enrich uranium -- in a limited manner and under international supervision -- for its civilian nuclear energy program will be a necessary part of any agreement. Netanyahu rejects this.
If Iran is willing to cut a deal that effectively provides a guarantee against a weaponization of its nuclear program, and that deal is acceptable to the president of the United States of America, why would Netanyahu not take yes for an answer?
The reason lies in Netanyahu's broader view of Israel's place in the region: The Israeli premier simply does not want an Islamic Republic of Iran that is a relatively independent and powerful actor. Israel has gotten used to a degree of regional hegemony and freedom of action -- notably military action -- that is almost unparalleled globally, especially for what is, after all, a rather small power. Israelis are understandably reluctant to give up any of that.
Israel's leadership seeks to maintain the convenient reality of a neighboring region populated by only two types of regimes. The first type is regimes with a degree of dependence on the United States, which necessitates severe limitations on challenging Israel (including diplomatically). The second type is regimes that are considered beyond the pale by the United States and as many other global actors as possible, and therefore unable to do serious damage to Israeli interests.
Israel's leadership would consider the emergence of a third type of regional actor -- one that is not overly deferential to Washington but also is not boycotted, and that even boasts a degree of economic, political, and military weight -- a deeply undesirable development. What's more, this threatens to become a not-uncommon feature of the Middle East: Just look at Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or Egypt before the July 3 coup, or an Iran that gets beyond its nuclear dispute and starts to normalize its relations with the West.
There are other reasons for Netanyahu to oppose any developments that would allow Iran to break free of its isolation and win acceptance as an important regional actor with which the West engages. The current standoff is an extremely useful way of distracting attention from the Palestinian issue, and a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran would likely shine more of a spotlight on Israel's own nuclear weapons capacity. But the key point to understand in interpreting Netanyahu's policy is this: While Obama has put aside changing the nature of the Islamic Republic's political system, Israel's leader is all about a commitment to regime change -- or failing that, regime isolation -- in Tehran. And he will pursue that goal even at the expense of a workable deal on the nuclear file.
Netanyahu's maximalism does not represent a wall-to-wall consensus within the Israeli establishment. There is another Israeli strand of thinking -- notably among retired security elites like former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin -- that holds that the challenges posed by Iran can be managed in different ways at different times. Others inside Israel's establishment acknowledge that the current period of unchallenged hegemony is unsustainable and that adjustments will have to be made. Some understand the efficacy of having an Iran more tied into the international system rather than isolated from it -- a deal on Iran's nuclear program, for instance, could also have its uses in limiting the maneuver room of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
But Netanyahu has rejected these positions. The prime minister is nothing if not consistent: He was similarly intractable when the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League put forth pragmatic proposals. While the PLO's leadership accepts Israel's existence, the 1967 lines, and an accommodation on Israeli settlements (including in East Jerusalem) by way of land swaps, Netanyahu has shifted the goal posts -- rejecting the 1967 lines and refusing to take yes for an answer. With the Arab League's "Arab Peace Initiative" offering recognition of Israel and comprehensive peace in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories, Netanyahu is again following this pattern of rejectionism.
Netanyahu is a deeply ideological leader with an unshakeable belief in a Greater Israel and regional hegemony. If this reading of him is accurate, it bodes ill for Israel's reaction to the nascent diplomacy between the United States and Iran. In the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu will likely dedicate himself to derailing any prospect for a diplomatic breakthrough.
In that mission he is, of course, not alone. He will be joined by American hawks and neoconservatives, Republicans who will oppose Obama on anything, and some Democrats with a more Israel-centric bent. Their efforts will be concentrated on escalating threats against Iran, increasing sanctions, and raising the bar to an impossibly high place on the terms of a nuclear deal. All this will serve -- intentionally, one has to assume -- to strengthen hard-liners in Tehran who are equally opposed to a deal.
Of course, the Iranian forces ranged against Rouhani's pragmatism do not need encouragement from Washington. But absent encouragement, they are not in the ascendancy -- and crucially, Rouhani appears to have the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for his diplomatic outreach. Currently, the difference among the three capitals -- Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem -- is that only in Jerusalem does a representative of the hard-line faction, rather than the pragmatic camp, hold the most senior political office.
If diplomacy survives this initial onslaught and the contours of a deal take shape, Netanyahu will face the choice that he has most wanted to avoid throughout his years in office: to acquiesce to a Western rapprochement with Iran or to stand alone in diplomatic and, presumably, military defiance. The ideologue in Netanyahu will counsel defiance, while the risk-averse politician in him will recommend a climb-down.
If Netanyahu wants a way out from bombing Iran, he could simply declare victory. It would be an easy speech to write: Bibi would declare that it was only Israeli pressure for sanctions and a credible military threat that created the conditions for a nuclear deal with Iran. Even if Netanyahu is wrong on the details regarding sanctions and threats -- they have often hindered, not advanced, progress toward a deal -- the desired result will have been achieved.
Netanyahu is not under Israeli public pressure to strike militarily or reject a deal. His security establishment is divided but wary of going solo, and even his cabinet is split on the issue. And this is why Monday's White House meeting matters so much: While Obama retreated on the Palestinian issue when Netanyahu stared him down -- first on settlements and then on the issue of using the 1967 borders as the basis for a deal -- on Iran they have so far deferred their disagreements. But that option may be reaching its expiration date. The Iran issue is now more urgent, and if progress is to be made on either of the priorities Obama highlighted at the United Nations -- Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- the president will need to become defter at outmaneuvering his Israeli guest.
Netanyahu's calculations and his actions will be affected by clear signals from Washington, Europe, and elsewhere to stop undermining diplomacy, and making the case for the unrivaled benefits of a deal with Iran. After decades spent boxing in Tehran, the interests of global and regional security -- and even of Israel itself -- may now require a short, sharp burst of boxing in Bibi.
