It’s almost hard to believe how much time, effort and finances went into the different aspects of President Obama’s brief trip to and around Israel. About $12 million was spent, much of it related to security measures. But, now that he’s returned to points west, we have a chance to reflect on what happened and ask “now what?” Netanyahu’s apology to the Turkish Prime Minister continues to be a hot issue, which is not over yet. 

It is now more than a week after U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama whirlwind visit to Israel, which included time in the area presently under the control of the “Palestinian” Authority, a s well as Jordan. This time allowed for reflection upon what that visit was all about and what it accomplished.

When all of the photo ops were finished, we were able to know only what the different leaders wanted us to know, namely those things that were made available to the public, through joint media statements, or “leaks” to the media from more or less nameless individuals who were privy to the private conversations held between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, between Obama and “Palestinian” Authority Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and between Obama and King Abdullah of Jordan. The public statements were intended to appease different audiences, particularly those on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. To Israelis, the message was that we have ties to this land that are of ancient origin and that any resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict must include a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. To the “Palestinians”, it was that they have a right to live free in their own land. The clear conflict is that the President made a distinction between our land and their land, as if the latter is separate from the former and, at some mysterious point in time, came into existence in Judea and Samaria..

It soon became obvious that Obama ran the show and called the shots, who he would speak with and why. Students, instead of leaders, because they are younger and more impressionable, as well as a friendlier audience. The fact that the university students from Ariel University were excluded from attending his speech in Jerusalem’s convention center revealed a continuation of the political stance of the United States, not to recognize what is “over the Green Line” as Israeli. Clearly, this decision was also calculated to minimize potentially antagonistic responses, particularly concerning Jewish settlement areas. The “Palestinians” had to take notice of this position and needed to be thankful for it. The same reasoning holds true regarding the decision not to address Israel’s Knesset, but to speak “directly” to the “next generation” of Israeli’s potential leadership.

What should be seen as a significant, positive achievement from Obama’s visit and speeches, at least from Israel’s perspective, is that which is most objected to by the “Palestinians”, namely, the demand that they, the “Palestinians”, recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”. This can be understood from the comment of Salah Bardawil, a Hamas member of the “Palestinian” Legislative Council, who referred to that demand as “the most dangerous statement by an American president regarding the Palestinian issue.” This should be considered a little more in depth.

Even if we leave out the Biblical account (which should always be in the forefront of our thinking), the identity of Israel as a “Jewish state” is not of recent vintage. It dates back to the time of Theodor Herzl, who, in the late 1890’s wrote his book, The Jewish State (“Der Judenstaat”). It was referred to dozens of times in the The Balfour Declaration of 1917, and by the U.N., in Resolution number 181 of the General Assembly, which partitioned the area of the “Palestinian” Mandate into two. And, of course, there are several mentions in Israel’s “Declaration of Independence”, which proclaimed “the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel”.

This is a fundamental issue and lies at the heart of discussions and so-called “negotiations” with the “Palestinians”, who want us to be religiously neutral, political entity. For over 40 years, we have been talking with those who did not recognize our right to exist and insisting on this specific, recognition of our national identity and during all this time, it has been rejected. The idea underlying the concept of “two states for two peoples” is that there is one population, which is Islamic, and another population, which is Jewish. Even Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was willing to offer the Arabs an extreme compromise, said in 2007: “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state.” This demand was again soundly rejected by Mahmoud Abbas, who said: “In Israel, there are Jews and others living there. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else.” This precondition to continued and/or renewed negotiations was repeated by P.M. Netanyahu, in “Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples.” The response by Abbas, in rejecting this precondition, was sarcasm: “What is a ‘Jewish state?’ We call it the ‘State of Israel.’ You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. … It’s not my job to … provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like, I don’t care.”

In September, 2011, the head of the Arab-Israeli organization, “Adalah” (meaning, “justice”), explained why those who call them “Palestinians” cannot recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”: “For the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is to declare their surrender, meaning, to waive their group dignity by negating their historical narrative and national identity. … we would accept the rationale of the [Jewish] Law of Return, and as a result, we would waive our right to return, even in principle.”

Less than a week before that, Abbas said: “Don’t order us to recognize a Jewish state. We won’t accept it.”

This refusal has been repeated time and time again by Abbas and various representatives on the part of the “Palestinians”. As stated above, this issue lies at the heart of all of Israel’s negotiations with them. But, their refusal to recognize Israel as. “Jewish state” imposes a double standard. The revised draft of what has been called the “Constitution of the State of Palestine”, which was revised in 2003, states, among other things:

So, the double standard is that the “Palestinians” want their state to be “Muslim”, but refuse to recognize our state to be Jewish.  As an aside, if Islamists truly “revered and respected” the rights of all citizens in different Islamic countries, “irrespective of their religious belief”, then there would not be people in those countries who are facing the death penalty or long-term jail sentences for converting from Islam to another religion.

In retrospect, Obama’s speech requiring that “Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state” caught the “Palestinians” off guard, forcing them to deal with the issue that has, until now, prevented any progress towards peace. But, most Israelis just don’t trust the “Palestinians”. For the most part, Israelis don’t see the need to even try to renew negotiations. The situation, from a security perspective vis-a-vis the “Palestinians”, has been relatively quiet. No suicide bombers for a while. After withdrawing from Lebanon and from Gush Katif (just north of Gaza), both at considerable expense to Israel, there is no reason why Israel should be put in a situation of having to negotiate and give up more territory or make more “painful concessions” to our enemies.

Obviously, the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” is not the only issue, of course. Another one is the preconditions set by the “Palestinians” for renewed negotiations. This, too, was addressed by Obama, when he called on the “Palestinians” to drop any preconditions for returning to the bargaining table. Both of these requests accomplish one positive diplomatic effort, namely, to place the ball of responsibility for the breakdown and/or continuation of negotiations into the court of the “Palestinians”. It took years for terrorists to learn how to put on a suit and tie and to call themselves politicians. Let’s see how long it takes for them to learn how to pick up the political ball without dropping it.

By the way, it was reported that Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has announced that she will oppose any law that states that Israel is the national home of the Jewish people. Is this really the person that Netanyahu has appointed to head up negotiations with the “Palestinians”?

Obama’s visit did not clarify matters regarding Iran, as no time-table for dealing with it has been set, at least not publicly. The failure of the U.S. to take a firm, positive stand on this issue during or immediately following his visit could only be understood as a tacit continuance of U.S. policy of diplomacy. It cannot be understood as “speak softly, but carry a big stick”. Such a policy continues to misunderstand the mentality of this region and acts as an encouragement to Iran, among others, to the discouragement of Israel and the rest of the world. Undoubtedly, in conversations that took place behind closed doors, Israel was given assurances of U.S. military backing when (not if) the time comes to act. But, in light of North Korea’s recent actions and threats, it becomes obvious that the timetable has been moved up and the longer everyone waits, the greater the danger to Israel, the region and the world. This is not a time or matter for political correctness. It is a time that requires facing reality with eyes open and clear thinking. It is not a time for fancy speeches, nor is it a time for prideful expectations that the problem can be dealt with later. No one wants to run to war, nor do we want to send our sons into harm’s way. But, neither do we want to hear “Oops! We waited too long.”

Another result of Obama’s visit here was mentioned in last week’s TWTW, namely, Israel’s apology to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident, which took place in 2010. This continued to be a major issue in Israel all week and in political circles around the world. Many of Israel’s friends praised her for taking a “correct and brave step”. But, Netanyahu’s actions in this regard have drawn political fire at home. 

Among those who opposed the apology was Naftali Bennett, head of HaBayit Hayehudi and the newly-appointed Economy and Trade minister, who published the following on Facebook: “Since the apology was made public, it appears [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan (pronounced “Erd-wan”) is doing everything he can to make Israel regret it, while conducting a personal and vitriolic campaign at the expense of Israel-Turkey relations…Let there be no doubt — no nation is doing Israel a favor by renewing ties with it. It should also be clear to Erdoğan that if Israel encounters in the future any terrorism directed against us, our response will be no less severe.” He encouraged those serving in the IDF to “always do everything, and I mean everything, to protect the lives of Israeli citizens. This is your job. We’ll deal with the rest. The people of Israel stand behind you, we are always with you.”

Indeed, it would be foolish to think that after so much negative rhetoric against Israel by Erdoğan, all of a sudden he would change his tune and embrace Netanyahu and Israel as long-lost friends. As was clear from the outset, Netanyahu’s telephone call to Erdoğan was initiated by Obama and Erdoğan was under obligation to answer the call, due to Turkey’s involvements wither both the United States and NATO. With Obama in the picture, Erdoğan was put in a situation where he had no choice, but to accept Netanyahu’s apology. However, putting aside his verbal assaults against Jerusalem is another story, which come almost as a reflex reaction to the stimulus of hearing mention of Israel. Erdoğan has taken every opportunity to play up the apology and to take credit for this claimed political victory over Israel. 

Many of the politicos in Israel who support the apology say that it was a good, political move and that the timing was right, give the turbulence and instability of the situation in Syria. That reasoning was debunked by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who that “Israel’s apology was not about Syria [but] was a product of Turkish diplomatic pressure.” While those serving in Israel’s commando units were not happy with the way in which the apology was worded, in that it gave the impression that the military operation did not “succeed” because of them, they nevertheless understand that this was a political decision that they will just have to live with.

Several other matters were said to have been dealt with, as part of the phone call where the apology was made. The acceptance of the apology was said to include an agreement to end legal claims against Israeli soldiers, as well as an understanding that Turkey would not pressure Israel any more to lift the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. These latter items are not “official” statements from either country, at least not at this juncture. It is hard to believe that Netanyahu, being the skilled negotiator that he is, would not get at least verbal assent to these issues before agreeing to compensate the families of the nine Turkish activists, who were killed by our commandos who boarded the Mavi Marmara. Before these unofficial reports circulated, it was reported that the Turks are unable to stop the legal proceedings that were commenced against the IDF officers and commandos who boarded the Mavi Marmara. This, too, will be revealed shortly.

Whether or not we agree to pay “compensation” to the activists’ families, it is, as we say, a done deed, that is the agreement. However, the matter of amount of “compensation” for the families is far from being resolved, as Turkey is asking for $1 million per family, while Israel offered $100,000. Obviously, these are opening salvos and both sides will have to compromise on the issue. Jerusalem is sending an official delegation to Ankara to work on this matter and it won’t be long before we know whether there is a deal, or whether we end up with another diplomatic crisis with Turkey because of the lack of agreement on the amount of the “compensation”.

The content of the telephone conversation between Netanyahu and Erdoğan continues to be a matter of concern here. The Turkish newspaper Hürriyet reported that the conversation between Erdoğan and Netanyahu, which included Obama, was recorded. The contents of that recording has not been made public for reasons which should be obvious. If, in fact, it does exist and is not just “rumor”, then it was leaked to the media for effect and to place additional pressure, and possible embarrassment, on Jerusalem. Still, Erdoğan is playing up the situation, building up both himself and his ego, by claiming to now be a major player in the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to his statement last Wednesday, there has been a shift in the balance of power concerning this matter, because the “apology agreement” requires that Israel cooperate with Turkey regarding it. I find it very difficult to believe that after so much “bad blood” with Turkey over the last three years, and, particularly with Erdoğan, that Netanyahu would agree to obligated Israel to cooperate with Turkey in an effort to resolve this long-standing conflict.

Until Erdoğan steps down, it does not appear that he will ease up on his complaints against Israel. We’ll get a good indication which way the wind is blowing when he visits Gaza soon and stands alongside leaders of Hamas. Israel had good reasons for wanting to end the diplomatic crisis with Turkey, but, if the ice between our two countries doesn’t melt quickly, we may end seriously regretting making the apology.

When President Obama met with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, he extended a compliment to the latter’s great-grandfather, King Abdullah I, whom the U.S. President said “gave his life in the name of peace.” While sounding good and certainly respectful, it appears that the differences between Western and Middle-Eastern cultures was not understood and, therefore, possibly lost when that statement was made.

Without going into a lengthy history of the region, we’ll jump to modern times when, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the division of its lands between the British and The French, the area east of the Jordan River, referred to as Transjordan, became part of the British Mandate for Palestine. When the British Mandate came to an end, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan came into existence with Abdullah as its first king. His military forces were part of those which fought against the newly established State of Israel and were defeated. But, they succeeded in crossing the Jordan River and capturing the area of Judea and Samaria, which was renamed the West Bank (of the Jordan). Under Abdullah’s rule, the country changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.  He came to understand, as did those under his rule, that the continued conflict with Israel would not be beneficial to either side and held out a hand of reconciliation with Israel. Apparently, for this reason, he was assassinated in 1951, as he left the al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem. As an interesting aside, no proposal was made by Arab leaders at that time to create an independent “Palestinian” state in any of the areas now under the control of the P.A., or in the area known internally as E-1, or even Gaza, which was then under the control of Egypt.

In 1979, President Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel and was assassinated two years later. In 1982, the then President of Lebanon, Bachir Gemayel, was assassinated two weeks after agreeing to begin the process of normalizing diplomatic relations with Israel.

Ehud Barak, while serving as Prime Minister of Israel, offered Yassir Arafat about 97% of the territory now is dispute. The offer was turned down, apparently, because of his understanding that acceptance of the offer meant ending the holy war against Israel. Ending the conflict with Israel could also end his life. Not that I’m convinced that he wanted to end the conflict at all.

So, where does that put other Arab leaders today? The region is infiltrated by Islamists, many of whom look forward to the day when Israel will be defeated and the Jews will be thrown into the sea. If they attempt to establish peaceful relations with Israel, they may experience a fate similar to that of asking Abdullah I, Bachir Gemayel and Anwar Sadat. The exception to the rule, so far, is King Hussein (the father of Abdullah II), who concluded peace negotiations with Israel and brought the formal state of war between the two countries to an end. 

So, if we go back to the compliment made by Obama to King Abdullah’s great grandfather, it could be understood by a Middle-East mindset as a warning to be careful because of efforts to peacefully co-exist with Israel. We have been at peace with Jordan since 1994 and while our relations could be closer and better, we maintain a mutual respect for one another and share common regional concerns, while still not being in agreement on a number of matters. 

Words have a tremendous affect on those who hear them. I don’t doubt that under the circumstances, the King understood them in a positive way, while many of our other neighbors would understand them exactly the opposite.

A Cypriot court sentenced a member of the Hizb’allah terrorist organization to four years in jail, for plotting to attack Israeli interests on there. During the sentencing, the panel of 3 judges said: “There is no doubt these are serious crimes which could have potentially endangered Israeli citizens and targets in the republic.”

Cyprus is a member of the European Union, which organization has consistently resisted pressure from Israel and the U.S. to include the Hizb’allah on its list of terrorist organizations.

Notwithstanding that, according to a French official quoted by the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat based in London, France has agreed to add Hezbollah’s military wing to its list of terrorist organizations, after Bulgaria accused the organization of planning and carrying out a terrorist attack there, in which five Israelis and a local bus driver were killed, as well as because of Hezbollah’s involvement in aiding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his bloody fight against armed rebel groups.

Until now, the only European country that lists the Hizb’allah as a terrorist organization is the Netherlands. Anyone up for a  trip to Holland?

Three years ago, pro-“Palestinian” activists tried to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. Nine of them, who were aboard the Mavi Marmara, were killed by Israeli commandos acting in self defense. Although we were legally justified in our military action, we apologized and agreed to pay “compensation” to the families of the activists.

Now, another flotilla is on the pro-“Palestinian” activists’ planning board. The main difference is that this time, the provocation, which is designed to break our naval blockade, will go out from Gaza. The plan is to attempt to reach international waters, beyond the 3-mile fishing boundary set by Israel. 

The local and foreign activists will take part in what is being referred as the Gaza’s Ark Flotilla Freedom Coalition, will use a special, refurbished fishing boat refurbished for the event. According to organizers of the event: “Gaza’s Ark is the evolution of the flotilla movement. We’ve moved away from sailing into Gaza with aid. We now focus on sailing trade out, because it’s quite clear that if the ‘Palestinians’ were able to trade, their dependence on aid would be diminished quite significantly”. 

What needs to be clarified is that this intended flotilla and all similar events have as their primary purpose the embarrassment of Israel which would again lead to international condemnation. It has little, if anything, to do with reducing “dependence on aid”. This is one of the major, left-wing media bluffs for the past almost 40 years. “Palestinians” are almost universally shown in news clips as living in squalid conditions, with shops closed and enraged youths hurling stones at the IDF. What is not shown is Gaza, whose hotels can compete with some of the best in the world. Take a look at the following sites and some of the comments of people who have stayed in these hotels:

and 

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g663088-d594409-Reviews-Al_Deira-Gaza_City.html which are ranked the number 1 and 2 hotels in Gaza City, respectively. If there is blatant poverty in any of the areas that are under the control of the “Palestinian” Authority, it is because their leaders have squandered the billions of dollars and other foreign financial aid that has been transferred to the P.A. over the years.

The naval blockade over the area of the Gaza Strip was imposed by Israel in 2007, following the Hamas take-over of that area in 2007. The blockade is a legitimate act of self-defense by Israel and is designed to prevent, as much as possible, weapons reaching Hamas by sea. Some pro-“Palestinian” activist groups claim that the blockade violates international law and restricts the freedom of the “Palestinians”. Even though this argument was previously raised and was shown to be invalid, they keep repeating it, hoping that if enough negative pressure is placed on Israel, maybe international law will be changed, or at least bent a little bit.

It is difficult to ignore the fact that the U.S. has been overly lax when it comes to dealing with countries that are either out of control or on their way to becoming out of control. Such a lackadaisical attitude towards Syria, North Korea and, of course, Iran, seems to have encouraged those countries to continue on their paths of destruction, some intended towards its own citizens, like Syria, with others intended towards the rest of the world, like anorth Korea and Iran.

In Arab society, there is a custom of exacting blood revenge. However, when an errant murderer exposes his tribe to a chain of needless revenge killings, the tribe leaders can declare the man an “alien” and leave him to his individual fate. From that point forward, according to tribal law, revenge can only be exacted on the individual murderer, and his immediate circle is safe. The murderer is abandoned by the tribe, and the cycle of revenge is brought to an end.

Representatives of the Alawites, a minor sect of Shiite Moslems in Syria, are trying to distance their community from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (who is, himself, an Alawite), by claiming that he does not represent them. This attempt to dissociate themselves from Assad has taken various forms of denunciation, including referring to Assad as a criminal, who should be removed from power and authority. In reality, however, such attempts to “unidentify” themselves with Assad are actions taken to protect themselves and their families from the backlash and anticipated revenge that will be taken upon the Alawites, who, until now, have been in the governing branch of Syria and who have enjoyed the benefits of being part of a “special class” of ruling elite, despite their smaller numbers, compared the majority of Sunni Moslems in Syria. This response is also in line with Arab thinking and custom, which allows for a tribe to “expel” a rogue member, declaring him to be an “alien”, which would put an end to the risk of the entire tribe having to pay the price for his wrongful actions, when his victims seek to carry out revenger. Placing him outside of “the fold”, in a sense, leaves the revenge factor on the individual only and not on the entire tribe. Whether or not this will hold true when Assad is deposed is another matter entirely. One cannot be silent while over 60,000 fellow countrymen are being killed by a rogue leader, only to wake up one day and say “It wasn’t us. It was him.” As long as the possibility existed that Assad would be able to remain in power, his fellow Alawites said nothing, as they, too, would retain their positions of power and influence. However, now that there doesn’t seem to be any question about Assad’s regime being toppled, all of a sudden, instincts at self-preservation kick in, with attempts to point a finger at an individual, instead of at the collective, who supported him.

Nations are aligning themselves with the Syrian situation, depending upon how their interests are affected. Russian warships supply advanced military materials to Assad’s regime, the Hizb’allah has fighters spread out in different locations in Syria and, of course, Iran helps to keep the Shiite regime alive. Interestingly, the Chinese are also been helping Assad and despite their own intervention into Syrian affairs, these countries strongly oppose other, outside intervention.

As a result, the Americans and the Europeans hesitate to supply weapons to the rebel forces, for fear that another Islamist dictatorship will replace Assad, already armed with the latest in weaponry, which could be used against them and their interests.

The desperation that Assad is experiencing cause him to take considerably more aggressive military action, using every means available to him. While it is fully anticipated that the rebels will overthrow his regime, the cost to Syrian citizenry is mounting. When he is finally toppled, Syria will become vulnerable to the strongest of the opposition forces, which will, again, provide opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood to step in. The only real question at this juncture is how will Assad’s reign, and reign of terror, come to an end? Will he be assassinated by those from within, will he be captured and publicly humiliated like Khaddafi from Libya, will he fight to his dying breath, or be secreted out of the country by one of his allies? Related, of course, is whether he will choose to use extensive chemical weapons. The possibility always exists that, despite everything, he will try to leave a positive legacy in the annals of Arab history by making a last-ditch effort to attack Israel with his extensive supply of weapons.

There is a lot more happening in this neck of the woods that is heating up the arena. There should be an increase in activity along the Syrian-Israeli border, there should be increased threats from the Hizb’allah in Lebanon. There will probably be a renewal of hostilities in the south, as Hamas will again start to flex its muscles, after a brief period of relative quiet, allowing it to re-arm and to fortify some of its positions. Egypt is run by the Muslim Brotherhood and the situation in Iraq has become more violent, after the U.S. withdrew its forces, which allows for greater intervention by its former enemy, Iran. In short, the picture of the neighborhood, from a military-political point of view, looks depressing. Depression leads to more violence and, ultimately, to inter-national conflict. Fervent prayer is needed, as Israel can be caught in the middle of it all.

Jordan’s King Abdullah signed an agreement with “Palestinian” Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, to cooperate with one another to stop the “Judaization” of Jerusalem. The constituted a ratification of Jordan’s protectorship of Islam’s holy sites in Jerusalem. A statement emanating from Amman provides: “This is something that is especially important during a time in which Jerusalem is faced with dramatic obstacles and everyday illegal changes are made to its original identity“. Exactly what the parties mean by “Judaization” of Jerusalem and how they intend to carry out their cooperation agreement, remains unstated. At this time, it signifies a closer, working relationship between Jordan and the “Palestinian” Authority with regard to what is still under Israeli sovereignty and includes much of which is in areas that are the subject of dispute.

And That was The Week That Was.

Have a truly blessed week.

Marvin

Originally sent to email list on April 3, 2013

נשלח מה-iPad של