Following the warm talks between Netanyahu and Obama,  Bibi was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos for ABC. 

While Stephanopolous was fixated on what further steps Israel was prepared to take, including about the settlement freeze,  Bibi did well in trying to present a broad picture of what was needed for peace, including direct talks.  The interview is presented here. 

Here is a video of the positive presentation from Obama and Netanyahu after their meeting… and some brief commentary from Dore Gold

Today there are Good Vibrations but what about tomorrow (after the congressional elections)?

Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech to the UN General Assembly is already being praised as one of the most eloquent and powerful presentations by an Israeli leader. 

Netanyahu didn’t shirk from naming the enemy, forcefully attacking the Iranian regime. 

Netanyahu defended not only Israel but also Western ideals in a speech that received widespread support.  

As we enter a New Year, Netanyahu’s speech shown here embodies how Israel can truly be a light unto the nations.

Following Israeli PM Netanyahu’s meeting with English PM Brown in London, the 2 held a press conference.  It seemed to be a positive meeting, as reflected by the press conference transcript and the points of synchrony between the 2 leaders. 

Netanyahu stated “I reiterated Israel’s commitment to peace and outlined what I believe is the winning formula for peace: a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.  We’re working hard to advance a peace process that will lead to an actual peace result and we hope to move forward in the weeks and months ahead.  We’re not waiting.  We have already moved: my government has removed, to be precise, 147 checkpoints and roadblocks.  The 14 remaining checkpoints, 12 of them are manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to facilitate movement.  I have extended the time of passage on the Allenby Bridge on the Jordan River in order to facilitate movement in and out of the Palestinian territories.  I chair a ministerial committee that seeks to remove and has removed roadblocks to economic activity in the West Bank.  We’ve moved on the ground.
I’ve also moved not merely in deed but in word: I have spoken about the need to achieve this balance of a demilitarized Palestinian state next to a Jewish state and I think that this has resonated far and wide.�
It wasn’t easy to do, but this is what we have done in the short period of time, the four months that we’re in office, so we have moved.  We expect similar movement from the Palestinian Authority and certainly based on what we’ve seen in the recent Fatah conference there has not been that movement; that’s an understatement.  But there has to be that movement.  There has to be not merely a partner on the other side, there has to be a courageous partner, because I think we’ve shown a certain amount of fortitude and leadership and that’s what’s required from the Palestinian side.  They have to say unequivocally ‘it’s over.  We are going to make a real peace.  It’ll be a final peace.  It will be a peace that will end all claims to further conflict.  It’ll be a peace that will resolve the Palestinian refugee issue once and for all and just as Jews can come to Israel, Palestinians can come to the Palestinian state.’  But not in Israel, because there has to be a Jewish state and if we’re asked to recognise a Palestinian state as the nation state of the Palestinian people, it is absolutely essential that the Palestinian leadership says to the Palestinian people ‘you will have to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.’  Recognition is the pivot of peace.  The absence of such clear and forthright expressions by the Palestinian leadership of such recognition has been what has been holding peace up and this is what the people of Israel and I think all fair minded people in the world expect.�
So, we have moved forward.  We intend to move forward, but we expect the Palestinian partners to be courageous partners for peace that move forward.  And with the help of our friends in the United States, in Britain and elsewhere, I think we can achieve progress that may confound the cynics and surprise the world, but there is no substitute for courageous leadership on all sides. 

With regard to the settlements, Netanyahu has refined his terminology from “natural growth” to “living normal lives”  - as seen in the excerpt below: 

“I think we are trying to achieve two goals.  One is to reactivate the peace process and the second is to enable normal life for the Israeli residents in Judea-Samaria.  We have about a quarter of a million such people.  They lead lives, they have children who have to go to school, they need classrooms, they need kindergartens, and they need to have a place to house their families.  This is very different from grabbing land, and I have made it clear that we are not going to build new settlements or expropriate additional land for existing ones.” What we are seeking to achieve with the United States in the talks we have conducted, the talks we will conduct tomorrow and we will conduct after tomorrow, is to find a bridging formula that will enable us to at once launch the process, but enable those residents to continue living normal lives.  When we have something to report on this, which is not necessarily what has been reported, then you will hear it loud and clear from me.”
With regard to Jerusalem, Netanyahu stated ” I have made it clear in my conversation with President Obama in Washington and since that Jerusalem is the sovereign capital of Israel.  We accept no limitations on our sovereignty.  This is very clear.  To put a fine point on it, I say Jerusalem is not a settlement.  The settlement issue is outstanding and has to be one of the issues resolved in the negotiations, alongside Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state and effective demilitarization arrangements for any future peace agreement.  But our position is that Jerusalem is the united capital of the Jewish people.  It has only been around for 3,500 years.  We recognise that there are obviously Arab residents in Jerusalem, and they enjoy all the equal rights and all the equal benefits of the Jewish residents.  We do not draw a difference.”

On Iran, Netanyahu stated

“Time is running out.  It is late in the day, but it is not too late.  If there is a firm resolve by the international community to apply crippling sanctions – to borrow a phrase from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – then I think this regime will have to make a very difficult decision about its future course.  I think it is susceptible to these pressures.  I think what has been revealed in the recent dramatic events of the Iranian election is that this regime does not enjoy the support of the Iranian people.  It is far weaker than meets the eye, and if the resolve of the responsible members of the international community is strong and firm, then however late the hour the future can be secured.  This is our preference.  I think that the stronger those actions and those sanctions are today, the less need there will be for stronger actions tomorrow.”

Gordon Brown stated  “We recognize the threat that is posed by Iran.  We recognise that if they make the decision to go for and to acquire nuclear, it is of profound significance for the rest of the world.  We believe that Iran has a choice: they can work with the international community, gain access to civil nuclear power and take their rightful place as a peaceful and important partner in the world; or they can find themselves ostracised and excluded because of their decision to break the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to hide from the world what they are doing to build up nuclear-weapon power.  I hope Iran will make the right decision.  I believe President Obama has offered Iran a way forward for this, but I also believe that we have to leave open every option in our dealings with Iran and at the same time, if there is no further progress immediately, I believe the world will have to look at stepping up sanctions against Iran as a matter of priority.”

The footage and statements from Iran in the last few days have been uplifting, tragic and mesmerizing.  We are learning far more about the inner workings of Iran, its current leadership and the bravery of its people.  To cover the uprising whose outcome will have important implications for Israel and globally, Nico Pitney from the Huffington Post has been running a “live blog” with instant updates.  While many of the updates are not corroborated in part because of restrictions inside Iran,  examples of the complexity, immediacy and passion are provided by recent statements below (again unverified) on the Huffington Post site.

“5:03 AM ET  Soon Mousavi will announce full national strikes, probably starting with Petrochemical - prepare for this… Expect food shortage - transport stoppage - money shortage in bank… Gov will respond with electric power cuts - prepare and have gas cylinders at home or gasoline for light/cooking… People of Iran - THIS IS THE DAWN - This is the new begining - have hope and prepare.”

“4:43 AM ET — Report: 40 senior clerics want election results annulled. The intense infighting among Iran’s clerical establishment appeared to play out in new dramatic fashion on Monday. Via reader Art, the news site Peiknet reported that Ayatollah Rafsanjani has a letter signed by 40 members of the powerful 86-member Assembly of Experts calling for the annulment of the recent presidential election results.  Moreover, the letter (the authenticity of which has, again, not been verified) charges that the arrest of Rafsanjani’s daughter Faezeh on Sunday was a way to exert pressure on him, and that she was followed and identified by the intelligence services during the rally.

More translation via a reader:  It says Khamenai has lung cancer and wanted to have his son as Supreme Leader (the position that Rafsanjani wants), and that the attempt to alter the election results was done in an attempt by Khamenei to eventually allow his son Mojtaba to replace him. It says that at the core the argument is not just about Mousavi but the overall system of government, as it’s becoming a like Monarchy rather than a republic. So far, it says, most of the clerics have not accepted Ahmadinejad presidency, and quotes Ayatollah Javadi Amoly saying of the attack on Tehran University students, ‘no Muslim will destroy another’s property, they must be foreigners.’”

From the Israeli perspective,  Jerusalem Post carries a written interview  and video “Meet the Press (US) with PM Netanyahu in which he discusses Israel’s stance on the current Iran conflict, as well as the response to his recent speech.  Netanyahu presents in a reasoned and positive manner.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered his awaited speech at the Begin-Sadat Centre at Bar-Ilan University, on his vision for the future, including the issues of Iran and peace with the Palestinians.

The full text of the speech is shown here and well worth reading.

David Horowitz, from the Jerusalem Post, provides a reasoned analysis of the speech, and concludes that it matches the consensus in Israel pretty well. 

Netanyahu’s comments are also consistent with the international will, including Pres Obama, in regards to calling for a Palestinian state living at peace alongside Israel, and reaffirming that Israel would build no new settlements and take control of no more West Bank land.  However, Netanyahu reaffirmed that natural growth in established settlements would continue.

PM Netanyahu stipulated that he could accept Palestinian statehood only if, first, philosophically, the Palestinians publicly acknowledged Israel’s essence as the homeland of the Jewish nation (which practically includes no return of Palestinian refugees to Israel) and, second that Palestine would be demilitarized. “We don’t want missiles on our cities,” he said simply. “We want peace.”

US President Barack Obama welcomed the prime minister’s speech, calling it an important step forward.  “The president is committed to two states, a Jewish State of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. “He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel’s security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s endorsement of that goal.”

 Other commentary is provided 1, 2, 3, 4

In the speech, which was carried live in Israel and in much of the Arab world,  PM Netanyahu made clear that the Jewish people’s attachment to Israel is a deep and continuous one for 3000 years, and far richer than had been stated by Pres Obama.  Rather than the country being formed as a result of the Shoah, Israel’s presence would have helped prevent the Shoah.  Also, Netanyahu affirmed that Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel.

The initial response by the Palestinian Authority to the speech was a negative one, but as stated by Horowitz, the ball is now in Pres Abbas’s court.

The more right wing in Israel was also not happy, but all in all, Netanyahu delivered a realistic, middle of the road, forthright speech, which in 30 minutes, tackled the important issues, and seemed to resonate well with mainstream Israel. 

From a timing point of view, the speech, while staking Israel’s position,  will receive less publicity than expected, because of the current protests in Iran amid claims of election fraud following the reeelection of President Ahmadinajad.

Martin Sherman, in an article linked to below, poses the question “If I were Netanyahu” … what would I do when I met with US President Obama on 18th May.

Although the 2 met previously during Obama’s pre-election world tour when Obama was hailed by all, this first meeting as leaders, will provide an important gauge for how strong and close will be the relationship, with significant impact on Israel, the Middle East and beyond.

Although we hope for the best, signs thus far have been mixed, and suggest that Netanyahu will be put under significant pressure by Obama even in this initial meeting.   And as discussed in a previous blog item, that pressure will be directed at Israel to compromise and agree to progress towards a Palestinian state - the so-called 2 state solution.   President Obama, on the other hand, will have to address Israel’s existential concern regarding Iran, and the threat of an Israeli preemptive strike.

How is the US applying pressure on Israel?

1.  By linking US help on blocking Iran’s nuclear aspirations to Israel’s aquiescence on progress towards Palestinian statehood (and possibly dealing with Syria on the Golan).  This linkage has been spelled out by various people including Hilary Clinton, Vice-President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and National Security Advisor James Jones.

2.  Expressing in-principle support for the Arab League peace solution.  Since the plan includes return of Arab refugees to Israel (code for Israel committing demographic suicide)  and complete return to pre-67 borders (another impossibility in view of both security concerns and cities and suburbs built), some adjustment would be needed - and King Abdullah of Jordan is trying to gain support for this among his Arab colleagues.

3. Not treating Israel as a valued ally but just as one of the crowd.  The US is courting Turkey and in various ways reaching out to Iran while being peremptory with Israel.

4. Gradual build-up of J-street as an alternative voice for American Jews to AIPAC that is more in line with a US administration approach of supposed “tough love” for Israel.

5.  Including Israel among a list of countries that a State Department official recommended should abide by Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties.   This flies in the face of previous US administration agreement in maintaining ambiguity regarding Israel’s nuclear status, and US recognition that the ambiguity was an important part of israel’s security.

6.  Promoting the blackmail like view that the Israel-Palestinian issue is behind any Arab or Islamic related threat - even Pakistan and Afganistan.

7. Floating the idea that the US could accept (and bankroll) a Palestinian coalition that would include Hamas members - even if the Hamas members did not accept Israel’s existance and did not fulfill the criteria laid down by the Quartet.

8. The increased apparent weakness of the US - through its economic woes and President Obama’s apologetic appearance in meetings in Europe and with Arab leaders - also negatively impacts on Israel’s standing as a country with a powerful ally.

What is wrong with US applying pressure on Israel now?

1.  There is uniform agreement that a Palestinian state could only possibly be successful if it was a combined West-Bank Gaza entity.  Currently, Fatah and Hamas appear widely apart in their negotiations.

2.  There remains a lack of acceptance of Israel as a state of the Jewish people.  This has recently been expressed not only by Hamas but also by Abbas and Dahlan, representing the Palestinian authority.   The successful prevention of terrorist attacks arising from the West Bank has been due largely to Israel’s strong presence there.   Removing the Israeli presence would likely lead to a Hamas takeover in the  West Bank and the threat of rocket fire into the heartland of Israel including Ben Gurion airport.

3.  Without removing the Iran nuclear threat first, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria would be emboldened and strengthened by Iran - and Iran’s presence would be immediately felt in the West Bank, leading to more threat against Israel.

In his meeting with Pres Obama, It will be key for Netanyahu to remove the false linkage between Iran and Palestinian progress.  While the Palestinians have by no means reached a level of stability or cohesion that would indicate a stable state is imminent,  the Iran nuclear threat represents a “clear and present danger”.

Netanyahu has thus far not articulated his support of a Palestinian state, instead focusing on economic, infrastructure development and progress on security in the West Bank.  This is unlikely to be a sufficient response for Obama, and Netanyahu will be pressured to make a more formal commitment and timetable to Palestinian statehood.   The challenge for Netanyahu will be to present a vision which covers Israel’s security requirements and includes provision for the Palestinians to demonstrate a capability to truly be a partner in this process.  If Netanyahu’s vision includes statehood, a danger is that the US administration will enforce a timetable that ignores Israel’s security requirements.

There are good reasons for Israel to be suspicious of the Palestinians overall intentions,  and experience would not allow Israel to rely on guarantee from any international force. Worrying parallels have been drawn between Israel’s situation and Czechoslovakia prior to the second world war, when it was “persuaded” to give up part of its land in the cause of peace.  While this may well be overly alarmist,  the stakes are high.

Time is an important variable with many balls in the air.

If sufficient pressure can be placed on Iran in the short term, it is possible that Ahmadinijad will be replaced by a moderate leader.  While the new leader will still be beholden to the supreme leader Khatamei and the hardliner Mullahs, this would still potentially be a positive move regarding the Iranian nuclear aspirations.

If the US economic plight continues to worsen, and the Pakistan/Afganistan conflict spirals downward,  the stature and popularity of President Obama might weaken, together with his ability to achieve a consensus to pressure Israel.

While the US state department and Administration appear less sympathetic to Israel,  the Congress remains supportive and Netanyahu retains the ability to appeal directly to both the Congress and the US people.   While a question always remains as to when to play this card, since it will bypass Obama,  there is no time like the present.  Fortunately, Netanyahu has an ability to connect with the American people - due to the years of his upbringing there, his time as Israel’s representative at the UN, and his rhetorical ability.   In his previous time as Prime Minister, Netanyahu was perceived by some to have buckled under US pressure at Wye,  and he will no doubt be eager to dispell this image.

Other countries besides Israel have thus far been dismayed by Obama’s courting of countries such as Iran.   Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a strong common interest with Israel in not seeing Iran gain nuclear weapons and regional dominance.  Other countries such as India and China may also be more open to alliances with Israel, independent of the US.

Ideally the upcoming Netanyahu-Obama meeting will be benign, friendly and exploratory, but the signs are that it will be a high stakes encounter, especially since Netanyahu will no doubt present Iran nuclear attainment as an existential threat to Israel, for which Israeli attack may be required.  Such a conflagration could have devastating local and global impact.

There have been excellent articles previewing the  upcoming meeting, and its implications.  Below are links to several of them -

If I were Netanyahu, by Martin Sherman

The Hamas Peace Gambit by Charles Krauthammer

Obama’s signal to Israel - submit by Mona Charen

Missing the “piece process” by Jonathon Rosenblum

“Obama, Netanyahu and American Jews by Isi Liebler

No linkage between Iran and Palestinians by Alan Dershowitz

A contrast to these views is reflected in J street trying to rally troops behind Obama, emphasising the tactic of mail-in support.

An article worth reading is The Power of the First Impression in which Elliott Abrams, a former deputy National Security Advisor, predicts the nuances of how the meeting will go.

The upcoming visit by Benjamin Netanyau to the US possibly on May 18 is likely to be difficult both for him and for Israel - more so than a two-step as recently depicted.

Signs suggest that President Obama will pressure Israel towards a 2-state solution at a time when Hamas and Fatah are far from agreement with each other and far from acceptance of Israel as a state for the Jewish people. At the same time, Jordan’s King Abdullah is making moves to draft an Arab peace plan that would potentially be more palatable for Israel as a starting point for negotiation.

While a Haaretz editorial sees this as an important opportunity, Melanie Phillips expresses alarm in her recent article Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus.

Yossi Ben-Aharon points out that President Obama, and more recently German Chancellor Merkel are working to link pressure against Iran’s gaining nuclear weapons to concessions by Israel regarding the Palestinians and the West Bank, and possibly Syria and the Golan. Ben-Aharon states that PM Netanyahu needs to clearly articulate that Iran’s nuclear aims, and its backing of Hamas and Hezbollah is the primary issue, even though this may be countered by the Obama team’s desire for rapproachment with Iran and possible cooperation with Iran regarding the Afganistan/Pakistan problems. Ben-Aharon warns that concessions by Israel at this time will increase rather than reduce the danger posed by a nuclear Iran and its satellites…others also share the concern.

Israel’s anxiety regarding a more dominant Iran is shared by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Gulf States - which will help to put breaks on US Iran moves that might come at the expense of other countries in the area.

Meanwhile, the Taliban-Pakistan violence in the Swat Valley of Pakistan as reported here looms as a major conflict with wide ramifications, quite separate from any discussion of 2-states west of the Jordan River.

Dry Bones has an answer!

Within the new Israel Prime Minister’s broad and inspiring inauguration speech, he included a message about Pesach. The speech was included on the Prime Ministers weblink.

His comments about Pesach were as follows:

“We are on the eve of the Passover holiday and the Seder. At our national table, there is an empty chair: that of Gilad Shalit. I will do everything in my power to quickly return him healthy to the bosom of his family, and will act to return all our missing soldiers.

Citizens of Israel, I asked myself how best to express the depth of my feelings at this event, on the eve of Passover 2009. I chose to read an excerpt from one of the final letters written by my late brother, Yoni, approximately one year before he fell during the operation to rescue the hostages in Entebbe: “Tomorrow is Passover,” wrote Yoni. “I always saw it as our most wonderful holiday; it is an age-old holiday celebrating freedom. As I sail backwards on the wings of history, I travel through long years of suffering, of oppression, of slaughter, of ghettos, of ostracism, of humiliation; many years that, from an historic perspective, do not contain one ray of light; but that is not the case because of the fact that the core remained, hope existed, the idea of freedom continued to burn through the fulfillment of the tradition of the ancient holiday. This, in my opinion, is a testament to the eternalness of the aspiration for freedom in Israel, the continuity of the idea of freedom. The Passover holiday,” he wrote, “awakens in me an emotional affinity, also because of the Seder which, like it does for all of us, reminds me of forgotten moments from our personal pasts, my past. I clearly remember the Seder we held in Talpiot, Jerusalem when I was six. Among the participants were a number of elders like Rabbi Binyamin and Professor Klausner, and my father was also there. There was a large table and there was light. I find myself in my past, but I do not only mean my own personal past, but also the way I see myself as an inseparable link in the chain of our existence and independence in Israel.”

His comments about the Palestinians were as follows:

“My Government will act vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority to achieve peace on three parallel tracks: economic, security and political. We strive to assist with the accelerated development of the Palestinian economy and in developing its economic ties with Israel. We will support a Palestinian security mechanism that will fight terror, and we will conduct ongoing peace negotiations with the PA, with the aim of reaching a final status arrangement. We have no desire to control another people; we have no wish to rule over the Palestinians. In the final status arrangement, the Palestinians will have all the authority needed to govern themselves, except those which threaten the existence and security of the State of Israel. This track – combining the economic, security and political – is the right way to achieve peace. All previous attempts to make shortcuts have achieved the opposite outcome and resulted in increased terror and greater bloodshed. We choose a realistic path, positive in approach and with a genuine desire to bring an end to the conflict between us and our neighbors. “

Other excerpts included:

“Alongside with excellence, we will also bring Zionism back. We will teach our children the eternal values of the people of Israel, and forge values of Jewish and Israeli culture in our country’s spiritual kaleidoscope.”

and

“At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the opening section of the Declaration of Independence. I am committed to the Declaration as a whole, including the promise for complete equality between all the citizens of the State, regardless of religion, race or gender. Our concern will be for all the citizens of Israel: Jews, Arabs, Druze, Muslims, Christians and Circassians.

To the Arab citizens of Israel I wish to say: you will find in me a loyal partner to your integration into Israel’s society and economy. I believe in this aim, and I will act in this direction.”

Since reporting often emphasises certain components and not others from speeches, ozi-zion has included a link directly to the site to read the full speech transcripts, and other activities of the office, including Avigdor Lieberman’s statements and background information.

PS Netanyahu seems to have selected a strong Bureau Chief and Director of Communications who will hopefully make a cohesive team, with Mark Regev, who has retained the position of foreign press spokesman. Regev, originally from Australia, spoke impressively during a video linkup as part of the recent AGM of the NSW State Zionist Council.