By Naomi Chazan

Dec. 24, 2009

Jerusalem Post

The status of Israeli-Palestinian relations depends more on the fate of health reform in the United States than on any other factor – or so conventional wisdom here has it. This approach suits the present Netanyahu government’s strategy well: It allows for ongoing diversions in the hope of delaying – and perhaps ultimately obviating – any serious movement on a viable political settlement. But it completely disregards the changing international climate in general and the new currents emanating from Europe in particular.

The US without a doubt has played in the past and continues to play a lead role in determining the terms and the pace of progress toward resolution of the conflict. It is not, however, the only player. Increasingly Europe, for many years content to take a back seat to Washington, is becoming a more vocal political (as well as economic and security) actor. This is being done with American foreknowledge, if not actual encouragement.

Any Israeli government which really cares about ending the occupation and bringing about the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would greet this development as an opportunity and not a threat. It’s a shame (albeit predictable) that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his key advisers see it otherwise.

ALTHOUGH THE European Union was the first Western body to formally endorse the two-state solution in its groundbreaking Venice declaration some 30 years ago, since the Madrid Conference and the launching of the Oslo process its involvement has been more economic than substantive. The creation of the Quartet only solidified the informal division of labor between its members, with the US coordinating the diplomatic effort and overseeing security matters jointly with the other partners and Europe bankrolling these activities. But 2009 may prove to be a significant turning point in these arrangements.

The first indication of a change in the nature of European policy came during the spring, with growing expressions of discontent with Israel’s comportment during and after the Gaza offensive on both the public and the official levels. The foreign policy spokespeople in various European capitals and in Brussels, alarmed not only with the extent of the humanitarian calamity but also with the nonchalant expectation that Europe, once again, would obligingly foot the bill for reconstruction, began to speak out.

As Chris Patten, the former European commissioner for external affairs, put it in an op-ed published in the Financial Times on December 15: “At present, international donors meet most of the bill for the consequences of occupation that should be met under the Geneva Convention by Israel. Over the last year, the cost to the EU and its members has risen to about 1 billion euros. How long can donors justify this expenditure? If Israel continues, as its prime minister says it will, to build settlements, making an agreement on a viable Palestinian state all but impossible, should the international community simply shrug its shoulders and write more checks?”

The second sign of a real shift appeared in the summer, when mounting frustration over the new government’s foot-dragging on President Barack Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze threatened to totally stymie the resumption of negotiations. While the US continued to press and the UN pushed, Europe – through its then foreign policy chief Javier Solana – suggested that unless discussions recommenced forthwith, it might be necessary to have the UN Security Council recognize Palestinian independence and grant its leaders international legitimation without an agreement between the parties. The Solana plan was the first official proposal that went beyond the parameters created in Oslo and echoed in the road map and the Annapolis process.

The third hint of change in European strategy came in the form of a report on east Jerusalem prepared by the heads of EU missions in the city. Promulgated in late November, this scathing critique of Israeli policy – which centered on Jewish settlement in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods in the city, on house demolitions and on the circumscription of cultural and educational activity – was signed by 21 diplomatic missions (including the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic, considered to be Israel’s most stalwart supporters on the continent).

IT IS hardly surprising that attention therefore came to focus on the EU foreign ministers’ comprehensive statement of policy on Palestine and Israel, adopted unanimously barely two weeks ago. The final draft, a somewhat modified version of the original text proposed by the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, nevertheless constitutes the most significant formal European declaration on the conflict in years. It not only calls for the urgent resumption of negotiations within an agreed time frame, but also makes explicit that any changes in the 1967 boundaries must be adopted by agreement. Pointedly, it invokes the gist of the report of the heads of missions on Jerusalem and, for the first time, talks about the city as the capital of two states.

Israeli efforts to further water down the document or thwart it entirely failed. Germany and France, considered to be Netanyahu’s allies in Europe, willingly went along with the final wording. Clearly, good chemistry between leaders does not dim positions, nor can Israel’s divide and dilute approach to Europe carry the day when external impatience is growing daily and European concerns are rising exponentially.

The quest for a more assertive European role on the Palestinian-Israeli front is not only a function of the coalescence of a sense of urgency on the waning prospects of implementing the two-state scenario and a growing apprehension regarding the threats posed by its alternatives. It is also very much an indication of major shifts within Europe in the wake of the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. The declaration of the foreign ministers leaves a pointed legacy to Catherine Ashton, the incoming high representative for Europe’s common foreign and security policy, regarding both basic positions and the activist role that its member-states want to play in the coming months. In fact, in her first major speech on the topic, she reaffirmed her intention to promote the principles enunciated in the joint statement.

The implications of this European shift are twofold. First, Europe, speaking increasingly in one voice despite attempts to argue the contrary, is set to become a much more prominent player on Israeli-Palestinian matters – not only because its constituents want it, but also because Obama is truly committed to such forms of regional cooperation. Second, the new Europe has flagged the contours of the endgame and declared its dedication to promoting this outcome. In the near future it will, in all likelihood, flesh out the steps that should be taken to achieve this goal.

For Israel, therefore, it will be much more difficult to continue to play Europe and Washington against each other or to sidestep the messages being conveyed by the Quartet. If it wants to keep ducking historic decisions and ignoring international entreaties, it will not look favorably on these developments. But if, indeed, Israel wants an agreement, it has a reenergized and more determined partner in Europe. The choice, once again, is in our hands.

By Ben-Dror Yemini

December 15, 2009

Maariv

They are part of us. Pioneers. The salt of the earth. Flesh of our flesh. They give up the comfortable life in order to be there, to be the first ones on the ground. Yes, they are mischievous; here and there they step over the line. But there’s no need to make too big a deal of it. After all, they are on our side.

That is the approach that too many of us take. We find it hard to recognize the danger. They are a cancer. Anyone who acts like a skinhead, a neo-Nazi or a jihadist – that’s exactly what he is, irrespective of his religion. There are Christians who fit that description, there are Muslims who fit that description and, if we still haven’t figured it out, then it’s about time we did: There are Jews who fit that description.

They exist in every nation. There are sickening phenomena in France, Hungary and Ukraine, where people draw swastikas, where synagogues are torched and where cemeteries are vandalized. These are people who have taken racism as an ideology. We, too, have such people in our midst. A small and marginal minority? Perhaps. But it doesn’t take more than a handful of extremists to set the whole thing ablaze. It’s time we realized that these people are not part of us and are not pioneers; they are our enemies. The people who hate Israel all over the world were delighted to see the photographs of the burned out mosque in the West Bank village of Yasuf. We cannot begin to imagine the effect that these pictures have in the world. People are appalled. Anti-Semites, on the right and the left of the political spectrum, are having a field day. Because the war against Israel, if you haven’t realized it yet, it not just waged with the Qassam and the Katyusha. The main field of battle is for the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

The hooligans who desecrated the mosque are our enemies, because they make an invaluable contribution to the campaign of de-legitimization by the radical left, by Ahmadinejad and by Hugo Chavez. They give extra ammunition to those who seek to turn Israel into a pariah state. A healthy country knows how to reign in such phenomena. In Israel, it seems, the penny refuses to drop. We are too forgiving here. True, the prime minister and the defense minister condemned the arson attack. But what about taking action? What about the basic understanding that the people responsible are terrorists who are doing as much damage to the State of Israel as Hamas? What about the realization that they are nothing more than a Jewish mutation of neo-Nazis? When will we realize that they are our enemies and that they are contributing to the global campaign to delegitimize Israel?

We must not dismiss them as a small and insignificant minority. These people enjoy the support of highly placed politicians and officials. Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, the spiritual leader of the national-religious camp, recently issued a rabbinical edict in which he de facto gave permission for his followers to chop down Palestinian olive trees. There are those who say that the attacks against the olive groves are perpetrated by left-wing provocateurs, but Eliyahu’s ruling certainly sets the tone. Not that he said anything about mosques, but by giving permission to cut down trees, he allowed people to make assumptions about where he stands on the desecration of mosques.

Rabbi Eliyahu is not just another rabbi. He is the spiritual leader of religious Zionism. In the 1950s, he was a member of a fundamentalist underground that sought to use violence to impose Torah law on the State of Israel. It is far from clear how a person of this kind ever became chief rabbi. But he did. And his ruling makes it clear that the transition to spiritual leader has not changed his extremist views.

When will we wake up and recognize the dangers being posed by this domestic enemy? When will the non-religious Zionist camp wake up and understand that a dangerous cancer is growing inside us? When will we understand that these hooligans, these neo-Nazi wannabes, must be stamped out before they grow too big. We can only pray that it still isn’t too late.

By Shaul Arieli

December 14, 2009

Haaretz

The rationale behind the road map and Benjamin Netanyahu’s “economic peace” is the Israeli demand that a Palestinian state be built before a final-status solution is discussed and implemented, or at least as negotiations are taking place. A well-established Palestinian Authority maintaining good government and enforcing law and order would calm Israelis’ fears that violence will flare up again and that the rifles of the Palestinian police will be aimed at them, and would ensure their support for “painful concessions.”

But such a welcome process – sponsored by the Quartet and with the involvement of the Americans, as represented by Gen. Keith Dayton – has a very low chance of getting anywhere, because of the reality on the ground created by Israel: the expansion of the settlement enterprise, the growth of illegal outposts and the powerlessness of the security authorities, the opposition of the settlers’ leaders to the removal of roadblocks, and the prevention of Palestinians from using main roads close to Jewish settlements.

The challenge that IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi posed to the Palestinians, when he said, “The more you do, the less we’ll do,” was taken up enthusiastically. Over the last year, a number of battalions trained in Jordan by the Americans have taken over in the Jenin district, where there are no Israeli settlements, as well as in Nablus, Bethlehem and the outskirts of Hebron, all to the satisfaction of the Israel Defense Forces.

The removal of roadblocks in these areas, along with stepped-up economic activity by Israeli Arabs in the West Bank and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s plan to support small businesses with international aid, have prevented the Palestinian economy from completely shattering. For the first time since 2001, there has even been a slight improvement in its performance.

But in recent days it has emerged that several hundred Palestinian policemen who completed their training recently have been grounded in Jericho and have not been deployed to Ramallah as planned. That district, whose Jewish areas are part of the Binyamin local council, includes many unauthorized outposts and more than 90 roadblocks on roads leading out of Arab villages and at the entrances to Ramallah, and Palestinians are barred from traveling on Route 443, which connects the agricultural hinterland with Ramallah’s urban center. In addition, there are two other roads for the exclusive use of Israelis. All this makes Palestinian economic traffic impossible, and does the same to the coordination necessary for the Palestinian police to move freely in the Palestinian areas.

Both the “economic peace” plan and Fayyad’s program for the establishment of a Palestinian state require the Israeli government to take a number of immediate steps: remove the illegal outposts, as it has promised the Americans it will do; remove most of the roadblocks; and make the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert a space for Palestinians to live again. In addition, roads must be opened to Palestinian traffic and corridors opened for the continuous use of Palestinian police.

These moves, along with permits for operating Palestinian enterprises in Area C and free access to markets abroad, including Israel, could bring about the desired economy and government on the Palestinian side. They would also block Fatah’s and Hamas’ criticism of Fayyad’s cooperation with Dayton; some Fatah members fear a rise in Fayyad’s prestige and Hamas deplores what it calls “Dayton’s Palestinian army.”

In the absence of such steps, and in view of the diplomatic deadlock, the building of the Palestinian state will come to a standstill even before its foundations have been laid. Israel cannot enjoy the best of all worlds. Palestinian security forces would rather fall into line with their opponents than take part in a hopeless process without a Palestinian state at its end. Investment from the outside, which is sensitive to political uncertainty, will diminish. Without it, the rapid economic growth will end and the idea of economic peace will be dead and buried.

By Avi Sagi

December 14, 2009

Haaretz

Let’s assume that the Goldstone report is distorted, one-sided and dripping with hatred for Israel. Does that assumption justify the lack of an investigation into what happened during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip? Does the fact that the report is problematic mean that the Israel Defense Forces acted properly? It seems as if the urgent need to close ranks against the outside enemy – this time, in the form of the Goldstone report – has resulted in total blindness and pathetic repetition of the old slogan: The IDF is the most moral army in the world, and acted accordingly.

But morality is not the same as talk about morality. Morality requires alertness and constant monitoring, a perpetual willingness to admit to failure or error. A lack of such willingness is equivalent to an inability to distinguish between good and evil. Hence criticism and scrutiny are needed now. And not just legal scrutiny, because that would examine only whether there were violations of the law that warrant criminal charges – and that is not enough.

Legal scrutiny is the floor below which lies criminality. But the scrutiny that is needed must also address the question of whether the IDF acted in accordance with the ceiling of our highest values.

It is precisely those who exercise legitimate force who must be doubly careful. The use of force is a huge temptation, especially given the value we place on preserving our soldiers’ lives. But we expect the IDF to surmount the high threshold it set in its own code of ethics, “The Spirit of the IDF,” which states, “A soldier shall not use his weapons and his power to harm noncombatants or captives.” Is it not appropriate to examine the IDF’s conduct in light of its own values? Can any individual or organization declare that it acted appropriately without scrutinizing behavior that seemingly rode roughshod over fundamental moral values, first and foremost the value of human life?

These weighty questions are not directed solely at the IDF. The IDF is an arm of the sovereign State of Israel and its government. Thus, just as we have a clear obligation to frequently examine the conduct of the state and its prevailing norms, we have an obligation to examine the army’s activities. The IDF is not an autonomous entity separate from the state, it is an extension of the state; IDF soldiers are us, our children and friends.

Therefore, the question of whether the IDF passed its moral test is one that ought to concern every citizen of Israel. Neither the chief of staff nor any other officer can be a substitute for our own conscience. The citizens of this state are those who bear overall responsibility for what it does, and what the IDF does. The IDF’s test is thus our test as a society, and as moral agents. No person of conscience can remain silent when such a heavy cloud hangs over the IDF’s actions.

The moral eclipse that has struck both the IDF and the civil government threatens our ability to be a just and moral society. Anyone who fears moral scrutiny has something to hide. The IDF has recently conducted a growing number of legal inquiries revolving around the question of an officer’s truthfulness. The gap between the vigor of these inquiries and the ease with which the IDF rejects demands for an investigation into Cast Lead cries out to the heavens.

Terrorism is aimed in part at distorting our moral values. The lack of moral scrutiny of the IDF’s conduct is a form of such distortion, and thus a victory for terror.

If the IDF and the relevant government authorities refrain from investigating, we the citizens must demand that they do so. If they persist in their refusal, then we must find a way to bring unbiased individuals together on their own to examine what needs examining. The lack of an investigation turns all of us, and not just the IDF, into defendants. We stand accused of responsibility for slipping the leash and enabling acts that are fundamentally immoral – and not only because of the refusal to scrutinize what happened. There is no way to deal with this responsibility except by setting up an external inquiry committee with no interest but to find the truth.

Prof. Avi Sagi is the director of Bar-Ilan University’s Program for Hermeneutic and Cultural Studies, a research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute and one of the authors of “The Spirit of the IDF.”