The notion that Israel is primarily responsible for deteriorating relations with Turkey, Egypt and the Palestinians, as claimed by U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in his speech to the 2011 Saban Forum, is more than simply inaccurate. It is disturbing and potentially dangerous.
While bad at any time, his finding fault with Israel at a time of great instability and uncertainty in the region is particularly distressing. More than ever, Israel stands out as an island of stability and friendship with the United States.
The defense secretary's comments need a clear repudiation from the White House. Letting the secretary's views stand as is could serve to bolster those in the region who seek to return to days when Israel truly was isolated. Rather than scoring points for this administration in the Muslim world, it will reinforce their perception of American weakness for not sticking with a friend and will embolden enemies of Israel to increase their hostility toward the Jewish state.
Mr. Panetta's analysis of developments in the region is quite strange. That Israel is facing difficulties with Turkey, Egypt and the Palestinians is, of course, a fact. Why that is so bears no resemblance to what the defense secretary said.
In the case of the Palestinians, it is Israel that has called for negotiations time and again, only to be rejected by the Palestinians.
Particularly surprising was Mr. Panetta's answer to a question about what Israel should do: "Just come to the damn table." Yet, only two months ago, the Middle East Quartet, in which the U.S. is a key participant, took the position that the parties should return to the table without preconditions -- a position that coincided with Israel's and that Israel accepted while the other side dawdled at best.
Regarding Turkey, while the dispute over the 2010 Gaza flotilla tragedy continues and some in Israel think their government should go further in apologizing, any objective analysis as to why the rupture in relations has occurred must point to a strategic decision by Turkey to distance itself from Israel long before the flotilla affair.
All one has to do is go back to 2009, when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan so rudely abused Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Davos conference. It was already clear then that Turkey was moving rapidly away from the strategic alliance that had developed over the years between the two countries. A Turkish repositioning internationally corresponded with its domestic change. Israel's behavior and policies had little or nothing to do with it.
As to Egypt, it is the revolution and the course that it is taking, not anything Israel has done, that has created tensions.
Hope still exists that Egypt will maintain its relations with Israel and, most importantly, the peace treaty that serves the interests of both parties.
Here, too, it is most surprising that Mr. Panetta would express himself this way, only days after Islamists won about 60 percent of the votes in the first round of Egyptian elections. Even those who are labeled "moderate" within the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrate fierce hostility to Israel and to Jews.
Mr. Panetta had other things to say for which he should be commended. He reiterated the importance of the unprecedented security cooperation between the U.S. and Israel.
He focused on Iran as the greatest threat to American interests. He made clear that any Iranian steps to block the free flow of oil in the region would be met with a strong American response. And he indicated that America's policy to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear capability would require an emphasis on sanctions and diplomacy, while keeping a military option on the table.
All in all, however, the totality of the defense secretary's comments seems to be a significant step backward. Much good work had been put in by the White House in recent months to remedy the missteps that characterized its Middle East approach during the first two years. The administration has tried to set things right -- in the president's admirable address at the U.N. in September, in its public and behind-the-scenes effort to forestall the Palestinian U.N. initiative, and in leading the effort within the Quartet calling on the parties to negotiate without preconditions.
Now, if the secretary's remarks are allowed to stand, they will likely set in motion events that will exacerbate existing problems.
If Turkey is going to consider any improvement of relations with Israel, it is U.S. persuasion that could help bring it about. Indeed, the president has been working at that. Now the defense secretary seems to have let Turkey off the hook.
If those in Egypt who appear to be winning the day are contemplating more aggressive steps against Israel (short of breaking the treaty), the secretary's comments may have made it easier for them to believe they might do so without suffering major consequences from the U.S.
And if the Palestinians were feeling pressure to return to the table after their misstep at the U.N. and the rebuff by the Quartet, they could see Mr. Panetta's statements as an easing of any pressure.
These perceptions can add fuel to the fire of an already raging region. It is urgent that the White House make clear that the secretary's remarks do not represent the views and position of the administration.
John W. Whitehead: America the Battlefield: The End of the Rule of Law
Not a single nation on earth accepts the legitimacy of the settlements. The current radical regime in Israel, in their intransigence regarding the settlements, has brought all of this down upon their own heads. When they are finally forced to give up the settlements and end the occupation, there will be peace. and regarding turkey, before the humiliations heaped upon the Turkish Government and people by the CURRENT, Radical regime in Israel, relations between Turkey and Israel were excellent.
All Mr. Foxman and his organization are doing is shooting the messenger, and in doing so are harming Israel far more than they are Mr. Panetta or any of the myriad other people whom they are trying to silence.
r
If Israel were to go to the table they would be there alone - or they would be there with the United Sates and them - but certainly NOT with Abbas and the Palestinians...What Mr. Panetta either chose to ignore or forgot is that Mr. Abbas has said he will not negotiate with Israel because he does not believe they want to negotiate with him.
Israel has proven they can do many things - but so far negotiating by themselves is not one of them...and maybe it is time to change that.
Maybe it is time for Israel to just declare it's final borders. Maybe it is time to just say enough is enough...this is Israel - we have no claim to the land beyond these borders.
The problem with that is Palestinians will declare a nation on the land that Israel does not want - and immediately start arming for war...how do we know this - because Israel left Gaza and suffers rocket attacks daily, because Israel left Southern Lebanon and now must deal with Hezbollah arming themselves from Iran.
That is the problem Mr. Panetta - not that Israel will not negotiate - it is that they have no one to negotiate with.
Israel traded land for peace - forcing Israeli settlers out of their homes in Gaza...why would anything here be any different - Abbas is not ready for peace ...the question is - is he not ready because:
1- he hasn't gotten wealthy enough yet
2- have his Arab League bosses not told him to yet?
What other reason could their be?
"It is in Israel's interest, Turkey's interest, and US interest for Israel to reconcile with Turkey, and both Turkey and Israel need to do more to put their relationship back on track,"
Also, Panetta told the Israelis AND the Palestinians to "get back to the damn table". Here's his actual statement, which makes that perfectly clear:
"Just get to the damn table, just get to the table .... the problem right now is we can’t get them to the same table … to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/panettas-advice-for-mideast-peace-talks-just-get-to-the-damn-table
As evidenced by Netanyahu's recent UN speech, Israel wants to talk to the Palestinians, but Abbas says no. Here's the exact quote by Israel's leader:
"In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I'll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We've both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we're in the same city. We're in the same building. So let's meet here today in the United Nations. Who's there to stop us? What is there to stop us?"
Abbas rejected these entreaties, and refuses to meet with Israel's leaders, as Panetta is well aware.
Can anyone recall when the ADL criticized and/or condemned the well documented fair treatment, discrimination, human rights abuses which the Palestinian People have suffered at the hands of Israelis for decades?
I can't find any mention...
For an organization whose primary goal is defending the worlds view of Jewish People, I would say that it really ought to be central to the scope of their work, but alas, they have chosen to make their primary goal attacking people who call attention to Israels worst actions.
"China's human rights record leaves a lot to be desired. China continues to deny human rights activists the right to speak out. Its control and suppression of Tibet continues". - Kenneth Jacobson, Deputy National Director of the Anti-Defamation League 2008
...you were saying?
And it Israel is the "victim".
Are you willing to admit that the only path to peace is the negotiating tables not bids to the UN or suicide bombers - or killing families in the middle of the night?
Well, since all peace talks have been based on UN Security Council Resolution, 242, why even demand a "two-state solution"?
It is important to note, 242, while expecting the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to withdraw from "territories", not all mind you, does not call at all for the setting up of an additional state in the territories in question, nor does it even make use of concepts such as "Palestinians" or a "Palestinian state".
It merely expects the "warring parties" to reach an accommodation of peaceful coexistence based on reaching an agreement on a "secure and recognized boundaries".
Thus, any demand, even before coming to the negotiating table, in the context of having to establish a "Palestinian state", or any state at all amounts to preconditions.
Thus, I suggest, if the poster is intellectually honest, he/she and like minded people should at once call for direct negotiations without any preconditions, including that of ceasing to demand the setting up of a "Palestinian Arab state" in addition to that which already exists on the eastern side of the river.
As for the peace talks, if Israel wants Palestinians to come to the table despite continuing settlement construction, Israel must agree for rockets to be continuously raining down on Israeli settlements and towns while they negotiate-- no preconditions, savvy?
No, it is not treason to promote the interests which are mutual to the United States of America and to the liberal democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.
And the mutual interests of the two countries and societies are many and diverse.
One reads in this post, between the lines, a resentment for the fact that America has maintained such a long, strong and mutually beneficial alliance.
And, one wonders, why rest it...??
Check this text published in the London Jewish Chronicle and cited this morning by Roger Cohen in the NYT times (yes, today, Dec 6, 2011):
"Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian columnist, visited Hebron recently and published a piece called “This Is Israel? Not the One I Love” in London’s Jewish Chronicle. He wrote of Hebron:
“A map shows purple roads where no Palestinian cars are permitted, yellow roads where no Palestinian shops are allowed to open and red roads where no Palestinians are even allowed to walk.”
He added, “I watched an old man, a bag of cement on his shoulder, ascend a steep bypass staircase because his feet were forbidden from going any farther along the road. Those unlucky enough to live on a red road have had their front doors sealed: They have to leave their own houses by a back door and climb out via a ladder. All this has made life so impossible that an estimated 42 percent of the families who once lived in this central part of town have now moved out.”"
Israelis walk on streets full of vile anti-Arab graffiti and shuttered Arab stores daubed with Stars of David. “To see that cherished symbol used to spit in the eye of a population hounded out of their homes is chilling,” Freedland writes.
This is happening behind the wall-barrier-fence. It is the result of an untenable status quo involving the corrosive dominion of one people over another."
But don't take my word for it, check out the article for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/cohen-come-home-to-israel.html?_r=1&hp
Quoting Jonathan Freedland:
"... it’s all very well for the Jewish Federations of North America to find the ads insulting, but I’d be pleased if they could reserve a little of their outrage for times when Israeli insensitivity or arrogance takes more violent form — as is frequently the case with Palestinians in the West Bank.
Jonathan Freedland, a Guardian columnist, visited Hebron recently and published a piece called “This Is Israel? Not the One I Love” in London’s Jewish Chronicle. He wrote of Hebron:
“A map shows purple roads where no Palestinian cars are permitted, yellow roads where no Palestinian shops are allowed to open and red roads where no Palestinians are even allowed to walk.”
He added, “I watched an old man, a bag of cement on his shoulder, ascend a steep bypass staircase because his feet were forbidden from going any farther along the road. Those unlucky enough to live on a red road have had their front doors sealed: They have to leave their own houses by a back door and climb out via a ladder. All this has made life so impossible that an estimated 42 percent of the families who once lived in this central part of town have now moved out.”
Israelis walk on streets full of vile anti-Arab graffiti and shuttered Arab stores daubed with Stars of David. “To see that cherished symbol used to spit in the eye of a population hounded out of their homes is chilling,” Freedland writes.
This is happening behind the wall-barrier-fence. It is the result of an untenable status quo involving the corrosive dominion of one people over another.
Here’s a suggestion for an ad campaign that might fly: A smiling Netanyahu shaking hands with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, beside the slogan: Come home to peace.
Forgive me for dreaming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/cohen-come-home-to-israel.html?_r=1&hp
Claiming that a shepard brought 50+ sheep with him while "attempting arson" .... Rightttttt...... by the time the Israeli authorities get around to investigating bet most of those sheep will be cut up and in freezers . The only high ground for the settlers is the land they stole from Palestinians
You think this is all happening in a vacuum don't you?
Did you listen to the statements of released terrorists who look forward to doing it all over again?
Thus, how can it be possible that Israel "expand" within the territory assigned to it by the international community? And, how could the "Palestinians" be victims, despite the fact that they were handed over 77% of the territory as far back as 1921?
I suggest that instead to throwing around slogans, we all delve a bit and appreciate the legal history of the region about which we discuss, thus do continue the discourse based on intelligence rather than "narratives", i.e fictional stories told for political expediency.
Perhaps for very good reasons!!
The territories in question were captured by Israel during the defensive June 1967 Six-Day War and incorporated, legally, into "the national home of the Jewish people"
The infrastructure of international law related to "Palestine", goes back to 1920. At that time the term "Palestine" referred to a territory - not a nationality or a state, mind you!! - that covered present day Jordan and Israel+territories. It was the San Remo Conference of that year that assigned "Palestine" to become "the national home for the Jewish people", the boundaries of which were to be determined by the rulers of the territory, i.e. the United Kingdom. And, the UK, a year later, in 1921, handed over 77% of "Palestine" to the Arabs, that part of the territory that is located east of the Jordan river and that subsequently came to be known as Jordan.
The rest was assigned to the Jewish people, the whole of 23% of the territory which is located west of the Jordan river. That assignment was etched in international law when the League of Nations accepted the partition of "Palestine" and considered the western part of it "the national home for the Jewish people", while no other people was mentioned in the resolution. The UN accepted and adopted the League of Nations resolution and wrote it into its Charter, Article 80,
It is apparently no longer acceptable to certain right-wing Israeli interests that the US offers a blank check military defense posture for Israel, we must also engage in what they regard as the 11rh Commandment, thou shalt not -not only not criticize Israel, one must never ask Israel to to pick up their tiny burden to reach out to their neighbors and the Palestinians and seek peace. There is not one simple request that Israel extend the olive branch to their presumed foes, they must be supported in their expansionist and self isolating posture.
Foxman engages in rankest paranoic hyperbole idestorting Panneta's blanket support for Israel and wise suggestions promoting dialog, not a neo-con meme that we are not sufficiently and blindly in support of the Likud positions. If Foxman really had Israeli's interests at heart he would warmly accept Panneta's support and not be trying to work for regime change in the US.
Only regime change in Israel can avert a regional war and catastrophe to Israel.
Jews were on this land 2000yrs before Mohammed
Whose the 'occupier' now?
And the exclusivity u talk of is the apartheid Palestine where the land isjudenrein
Disgrace. Get them before the UN for such racial abuse
Oh no cant they ain't allowed in
Wonder y?
Now, the Arabs and their advocates abroad with to snatch the 23% assigned to the Jews away from Jewish hands, be it in full scale wars, war-of-attrition-through-terror, or through diplomatic and "legal" manipulations that contradict international law.
And, by international law, i.e. San Remo Conference, 1920; League of Nations, 1922; United Nations Charter, Article 80; the whole of western "Palestine", i.e. Israel+territories, has been designated to be the "national home for the Jewish people".
Next