Signs and Events
Netanyahu May Endorse Palestinian
State on US Trip
Ben Curtis AP
JERUSALEM — On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's
crucial visit to Washington, his defense minister suggested Saturday
the Israeli leader might endorse a Palestinian state when he meets
with President Barack Obama.
That would be a significant shift for Netanyahu, who has made clear in
the past that he does not think the Palestinians are ready to rule
themselves. But that position has put him at odds with long-standing U.S.
policy that supports Palestinian statehood as the cornerstone of Mideast
peace efforts.
Senior White House officials said Obama's meeting with Netanyahu Monday
is "part of his commitment that he's made since day one of the
administration to pursue comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a
two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians."
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he thought an agreement with the
Palestinians could be achieved within three years.
"I think and believe that Netanyahu will tell Obama this government
is prepared to go for a political process that will result in two peoples
living side by side in peace and mutual respect," Barak told Channel 2
TV.
However, he did not use the word state, leaving open other options for
Netanyahu.
After the Israeli prime minister made a lightning visit to Jordan
Thursday to meet with the king, a senior Jordanian government official said
Netanyahu is likely to endorse a two-state solution when he meets Obama. The
official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the
matter.
When they meet, the two allies will be grappling with diverging policies
on how to approach the Mideast conflict. They do not see eye-to-eye on the
Palestinian issue or on the Obama administration's efforts to open a
dialogue with Israel's arch foes, Syria and Iran.
There has been a flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Syria in
recent weeks. An Obama envoy was in Damascus to try to repair strained
relations and assured the government the U.S. is committed to pursuing a
comprehensive Middle East peace that would include the Syria-Israel track.
Obama's chief Middle East envoy George Mitchell is also planning a trip to
Syria, U.S. officials said Friday.
Last year, Turkey mediated indirect talks between Israel and Syria but
Damascus halted them over the Gaza war.
The recent messages from both sides have not been positive. On Friday,
Syrian President Bashar Assad said his country was interested in resuming
indirect talks but does not see the new hard-line Israeli government as a
good partner.
Syria is demanding Israel cede all the Golan Heights, territory captured
from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war. But just days ago, Netanyahu said Israel
would not leave the Golan.
"When we have a specific vision and when there is a partner, then we
can speak about a date to resume peace talks," Assad said.
The U.S. and its Arab allies see the establishment of a Palestinian state
as the key to broader Middle East peace. And even if Netanyahu expresses
support for a Palestinian state, it won't be easy for his hawkish government
to make the sweeping concessions needed such as freezing Jewish settlement
in the West Bank and sharing the holy city of Jerusalem.
Netanyahu has said the old formula of trading land for peace has been
unsuccessful. He has suggested focusing instead on building up the
Palestinian economy and security services loyal to moderate Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas.
But he has acknowledged that would not be a substitute for political
negotiations. And on trips to Egypt and Jordan last week, he said he wanted
to quickly renew talks with Palestinians that stalled last year without any
breakthrough.
Aides say he favors giving Palestinians the powers to govern themselves
but minus the powers that could threaten Israel — establishing an army,
making treaties with states including Iran, importing heavy weapons, or
controlling air space close to Israel's international airport.
If Netanyahu does endorse a Palestinian state or agree to resume contacts
with Syria, he will almost certainly want something in return from Obama —
a tougher line on Iran.
"For the U.S., Israel-Palestinian relations is the top priority. But
for Israel, Iran is the most pressing issue," said Eytan Gilboa, an
expert on U.S.-Israel relations at Bar Ilan University.
Netanyahu has hinted he would be prepared to take military action against
Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons — something Vice President
Joe Biden has said would be "ill-advised." Israeli and foreign
media reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta secretly visited
Israel earlier this month and asked for advance warning of any military
strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu doesn't believe Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is
peaceful and sees Iran as the crux of the Mideast's problems, with its
nuclear ambitions, military arsenal and anti-Israel proxies, Hamas in Gaza
and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He traveled to Egypt and Jordan this week to try
to rally Arab support against Iran.
That approach is at odds with Washington's, which sees movement toward
Palestinian statehood as key to pressuring Tehran to keep its nuclear
program peaceful.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pointedly made that linkage
last month.
"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for
vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the
Palestinians and the peace efforts," she said.
Signs and Events
US Upholds Israel's Nuclear
Position as long as Iran Enriches Uranium
It
removes a major obstacle clouding White House talks next Monday, May 18,
between Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and president Barack Obama
and paves the way for an Israeli request to extend the 40-year old
"ambiguity" arrangement approved by Obama's predecessors.
The
senior US official, who spoke in Vienna on condition of anonymity, was
addressing preparatory talks for a nuclear non-proliferation treaty review
conference in 2010 Friday night, May 15. He made it clear that US arms control
negotiator Rose Gottermoelle did not break new ground last week when she urged
presumed atomic powers India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea to join the
nuclear non-proliferation pact.
The
US official said Friday: The four were unlikely to join the NPT "until
there is a change in the overall political and security context." He
added: "In the particular case of the Middle East, Israeli adherence to
the NPT is only going to be possible in the context of… full compliance with
[the treaty in the region]." Establishing a Middle East nuclear
weapons-free zone "depends on Iran fully complying with its NPT
obligations and suspending uranium enrichment."
This
statement eased concerns in Jerusalem that as part of his drive for global
nuclear disarmament, President Obama would insist on Israel leading the way to
win a bargaining chip in his forthcoming diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.
This would have terminated the informal longstanding deal between Jerusalem
and US presidents allowing Israel to refrain from admitting or denying
possession of a nuclear arsenal while maintaining the status of a nuclear
power in relation to its enemies.
At
the Vienna meeting, the five major UN powers welcomed the decision by the US
and Russia to negotiate an updated version of the 1991 Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START). Their officials meet in Moscow next week.
Signs and Events
The Europe of Our Dreams
May. 14, 2009
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
Israelis are wild about Europe. A poll carried out by the Konrad Adenauer
Foundation last month showed that a whopping 69 percent of Israelis, and 76%
of Israeli Jews, would like for Israel to join the European Union. Sixty
percent of Israelis have a favorable view of the EU.
This poll's most obvious message is that as far as Europe is concerned,
Israelis suffer from unrequited love. A 2003 Pew survey of 15 EU countries
showed that 59% of Europeans consider Israel the greatest threat to world
peace. A poll taken in Germany the following year showed that 68% of Germans
believe that Israel is pursuing a war of extermination against the
Palestinians and 51% said that there is no difference in principle between
Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and German treatment of Jews during the
Holocaust.
And it isn't simply Israel that they hate. They don't like Jews very much
either. In an empirical study published in 2006, Professors Edward Kaplan and
Charles Small of Yale University demonstrated a direct link between hatred for
Jews and extreme anti-Israel positions. A recent poll bears out the fact that
levels of hostility toward Israel rise with levels of anti-Semitism.
According to a 2008 Pew survey, anti-Semitic feelings in five EU countries
- Spain, Britain, France, Germany and Poland - rose nearly 50% between 2005
and 2008. Whereas in 2005, some 21% of people polled acknowledged they harbor
negative feelings toward Jews, by last year the proportion of self-proclaimed
anti-Semites in these countries had risen to 30%. In Spain levels of
anti-Semitism more than doubled, from 21% in 2005 to 46% in 2008.
Not surprisingly, increased hatred of Jews has been accompanied by
increased violence against Jews. Just last week, for instance, three men
assaulted Israel's ambassador in Spain Rafi Shotz as he and his wife walked
home from a soccer game. They followed after him and called out, "dirty
Jew," "Jew bastard," and "Jew murderer." A crowd
witnessed the assault, but no one rose to their defense.
Shotz was lucky. As Israel's ambassador he had two policemen escorting him
and so he was not physically threatened. The same was not the fate of
Holocaust survivors who assembled at Mauthausen death camp in Austria last
week to commemorate the 64th anniversary of the camp's liberation by American
forces.
As Jewish survivors of the camp where 340,000 people were murdered mourned
the dead, a gang of Austrian teenagers wearing masks taunted them, screaming
"Heil Hitler," and "This way for the gas!" They opened
fire with plastic rifles at French Jewish survivors, wounding one in the head
and another in the neck.
And Austria is not alone. From Germany to France, Belgium, Britain, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and beyond, Jewish kindergartens and day schools,
restaurants and groceries have been firebombed and vandalized. The desecration
of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues has become an almost routine occurrence.
Jewish leaders from Norway to Germany to Britain to France have warned
community members not to wear kippot or Stars of David in public. Rabbis have
been beaten all over the continent.
There is no state sanction for anti-Jewish violence in Europe. But in many
places it is either brushed off as insignificant, or justified as a natural
byproduct of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. In at least one case, the
official downplaying of the significance of anti-Jewish sentiments and
violence has had murderous consequences.
In January 2006 Ilan Halimi, a French Jew, was kidnapped by a gang of
Muslim sadists. For an entire week, the police ignored the anti-Semitic nature
of the attack - and hence the imminent danger to Halimi's life - in spite of
the fact that his kidnappers made threatening phone calls to Halimi's parents
where they recited verses from the Koran while Ilan was heard screaming in
pain from his torture in the background.
In the end, Halimi was tortured continuously for 20 days before he was
dumped at a railhead naked, with burns and cuts over 80% of his battered body
and died of his wounds shortly after he was found.
SOME HAVE attributed the rise in European anti-Semitism to the rapid growth
of Muslim minorities throughout the continent. This explanation has much to
recommend it. Levels of anti-Semitism among most Muslim minority populations
in Europe are exceedingly high. According to Kaplan and Small's study,
European Muslims are eight times more likely than non-Muslims to be openly
anti-Semitic. And Franco Frattini, the EU official responsible for combating
anti-Semitism, told The Jerusalem Post last year that some 50% of
anti-Jewish attacks in Europe are conducted by Muslims.
But while European Muslims are a major factor in the rise of anti-Jewish
violence, they are a bit player when it comes to the overall prevalence of
anti-Jewish attitudes. For example, with 46% of Spaniards negatively disposed
toward Jews, and with Muslims making up only 3-5% of Spaniards, we learn that
nearly half of Christian Spaniards are anti-Semitic. And as the 2008 Pew
survey shows, European hatred of Jews is growing at a fast clip. Indeed, it is
growing two and a half times faster than European hatred of Muslims.
In all likelihood, these negative trends for Jews are only going to
escalate in the coming years. Politicians interested in being elected have
already begun exploiting the rise in anti-Jewish sentiments to increase their
electoral prospects. In the 2005 British elections, for instance, the Labor
Party under Tony Blair depicted then Conservative Party leader Michael Howard
as the hateful anti-Semitic icon Fagin from Oliver Twist in a campaign poster.
Another Labor poster portrayed Howard and fellow politician Oliver Letwin as
flying pigs.
This state of affairs bodes ill for Israel's future relations with Europe.
In most cases, European politicians pander to the growing constituency of
anti-Semites by adopting hostile policies toward Israel. These policies then
serve to further justify anti-Semitic attitudes, and so the number of European
anti-Semites continues to grow, and in turn, European hostility to Israel
increases.
No doubt recognizing the political advantage to be garnered by attacking
Israel, last year Spanish investigative magistrate Judge Fernando Andreu
Merellesis decided to use a specious complaint submitted by the discredited
Palestinian Center for Human Rights to launch a war crimes investigation
against Israel's top political and military leaders. Against the stated will
of Spain's state prosecution, Merellesis announced last week that he is
proceeding with his investigation into claims that a dozen senior Israeli
leaders committed a war crime when they approved the 2002 decision to target
Hamas terror master Salah Shehadeh.
ALL OF this brings us back to Europhilic Israel. Due to the fact that the
majority of Israelis have yet to get their way, and Israel continues not to be
a member in the EU, EU courts lack the power to enforce their rulings against
Israelis. Today the only thing Israelis need to worry about is that we will be
arrested if we visit Europe. This is inconvenient, but not impossible to live
with.
Were Israel to join the EU, however, EU laws would supersede Israeli laws.
European courts could compel Israeli courts to enforce their rulings. Israel,
in short, would find itself subsumed in a hostile political entity that could
simply adjudicate and legislate it out of existence.
So what explains Israel's unrequited love affair with Europe?
There is no all-encompassing explanation for the EU's popularity in Israel.
It is a function of a number of complementary causes. The most important among
them is the abject failure of the Israeli media to examine European
anti-Semitism and its implications for European policy toward Israel in any
coherent fashion.
Rather than recognize that European anti-Semitism and its concomitant
hostility toward Israel is the consequence of internal European dynamics, the
Israeli media tend to cast both as a function of Israel's actions. Doing so
certainly makes for neat, easily digestible news stories, but it also
trivializes the situation. Moreover, by acting as though Israel's actual
behavior is at all relevant to European treatment of Jews and the Jewish
state, the local media effectively buy into cynical European moves to belittle
the significance of anti-Jewish violence. They give credence to false European
claims that the firebombing of synagogues is simply the regrettable
consequence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Then there is the issue of Israel's constant quest to end its international
isolation. For many Israelis, it is tantalizing to think that we can end our
international isolation by joining the EU. The EU is seen as a club of rich
and cultured countries with which Israel would benefit from merging. This view
again is nurtured by the media, which have failed to report on the failure of
the European welfare state model.
In light of the media's refusal to tell the story of Europe's hostility
toward Jews and the Jewish state, or the story of the EU's severe economic
problems, it is not surprising that precious few Israeli politicians have a
clear understanding of Europe. Successive foreign ministers - from Shimon
Peres to Silvan Shalom to Tzipi Livni to Avigdor Lieberman - have all voiced
varying degrees of support for Israeli membership in the EU. Their statements
have never been challenged in debate.
Finally, there is the nostalgia that many Israelis feel toward the old
pre-war Europe from their grandparents' stories. That long gone Europe, where
young women and men would walk along the promenades in Berlin, Paris, Antwerp
and Prague holding hands and eating ice cream, breathing in the air of
Heinrich Heine and Franz Kafka, has been kept alive in the imaginations of
generations of Israelis. Many of them work today as leading journalists, movie
directors and actors. For many Israelis, then, the myth of Europe is more
familiar than the real Europe.
Looking to a future of an increasingly Jew-hating Europe it is clear that
Israel and Israelis must quickly divest ourselves of our delusions about
Europe. For Israel to competently contend with Europe in the coming years, it
will be essential that both our political leaders and society as a whole gain
a firm grasp of where Europe stands in relation to both the Jewish people and
the Jewish state.
With a burgeoning and deeply anti-Semitic Muslim minority, and with a
Christian majority increasingly comfortable with flaunting traditional
anti-Semitic attitudes, dispensing with anti-Jewish myths ranks low on the
priority list for most European leaders. In contrast, for Israel, gazing at
this unfolding European state of affairs, it is clear that abandoning our
adoration for a mythological Europe is one of the most urgent items on our
national agenda.
Signs and Events
America's Support for Israel
May. 7, 2009
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
Arctic winds are blowing into Jerusalem from Washington these days. As Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's May 18 visit to Washington fast approaches, the
Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working
feverishly to force Israel into a corner.
Using the annual AIPAC conference as a backdrop, this week the Obama
administration launched its harshest onslaught against Israel to date. It began
with media reports that National Security Adviser James Jones told a European
foreign minister that the US is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with
the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem
to the Palestinians.
According to Haaretz, Jones was quoted in a classified foreign
ministry cable as having told his European interlocutor, "The new
administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question.
We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful
toward Israel than we have been under Bush."
He then explained that the US, the EU and the moderate Arab states must
determine together what "a satisfactory endgame solution," will be.
As far as Jones is concerned, Israel should be left out of those discussions
and simply presented with a fait accompli that it will be compelled to accept.
Events this week showed that Jones's statement was an accurate depiction of
the administration's policy. First, quartet mediator Tony Blair announced that
within six weeks the US, EU, UN and Russia will unveil a new framework for
establishing a Palestinian state. Speaking with Palestinian reporters on
Wednesday, Blair said that this new framework will be a serious initiative
because it "is being worked on at the highest level in the American
administration."
Moreover, this week we learned that the administration is trying to get the
Arabs themselves to write the Quartet's new plan. The London-based Al-Quds
al-Arabi pan-Arab newspaper reported Tuesday that acting on behalf of Obama,
Jordanian King Abdullah urged the Arab League to update the so-called Arab peace
plan from 2002. That plan, which calls for Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem,
Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights and accept millions of foreign Arabs as
citizens as part of the so-called "right of return" in exchange for
"natural" relations with the Arab world, has been rejected by
successive Israeli governments as a diplomatic subterfuge whose goal is Israel's
destruction.
By accepting millions of so-called "Palestinian refugees," Israel
would effectively cease to be a Jewish state. By shrinking into the 1949
armistice lines, Israel would be unable to defend itself against foreign
invasion. And since "natural relations" is a meaningless term both in
international legal discourse and in diplomatic discourse, Israel would have
committed national suicide for nothing.
To make the plan less objectionable to Israel, Abdullah reportedly called on
his Arab brethren to strike references to the so-called "Arab
refugees" from the plan and to agree to "normal" rather than
"natural" relations with the Jewish state. According to the report,
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was expected to present Obama with the changes
to the plan during their meeting in Washington later this month. The revised
plan was supposed to form the basis for the new Quartet plan that Blair referred
to.
But the Arabs would have none of it. On Wednesday, both Arab League General
Secretary Amr Moussa and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas announced that they oppose
the initiative. On Thursday, Syria rejected making any changes in the document.
The administration couldn't care less. The Palestinians and Arabs are no more
than bit players in its Middle East policy. As far as the Obama administration
is concerned, Israel is the only obstacle to peace.
To make certain that Israel understands this central point, Vice President
Joseph Biden used his appearance at the AIPAC conference to drive it home. As
Biden made clear, the US doesn't respect or support Israel's right as a
sovereign state to determine its own policies for securing its national
interests. In Biden's words, "Israel has to work toward a two-state
solution. You're not going to like my saying this, but not build more
settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow the Palestinians freedom of
movement."
FOR ISRAEL, the main event of the week was supposed to be President Shimon
Peres's meeting with Obama on Tuesday. Peres was tasked with calming the waters
ahead of Netanyahu's visit. It was hoped that he could introduce a more
collegial tone to US-Israel relations.
What Israel didn't count on was the humiliating reception Peres received from
Obama. By barring all media from covering the event, Obama transformed what was
supposed to be a friendly visit with a respected and friendly head of state into
a back-door encounter with an unwanted guest, who was shooed in and shooed out
of the White House without a sound.
The Obama White House's bald attempt to force Israel to take full blame for
the Arab world's hostility toward it is not the only way that it is casting
Israel as the scapegoat for the region's ills. In their bid to open direct
diplomatic ties with Iran, Obama and his advisers are also blaming Israel for
Iran's nuclear program. They are doing this both indirectly and directly.
As Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel made clear in his closed-door
briefing to senior AIPAC officials this week, the administration is holding
Israel indirectly responsible for Iran's nuclear program. It does this by
claiming that Israel's refusal to cede its land to the Palestinians is making it
impossible for the Arab world to support preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons.
Somewhat inconveniently for the administration, the Arabs themselves are
rejecting this premise. This week US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited the
Persian Gulf and Egypt to soothe Arab fears that the administration's desperate
attempts to appease the mullahs will harm their security interests. He also
sought to gain their support for the administration's plan to unveil a new peace
plan aimed at isolating and pressuring Israel.
After meeting with Gates, Amr Moussa - who has distinguished himself as one
of Israel's most trenchant critics - said categorically, "The question of
Iran should be separate from the Arab-Israel conflict."
Just as the administration is unmoved by objective facts that expose as folly
its single-minded devotion to the notion that Israel is responsible for the
absence of peace in the Middle East, so the Arab rejection of its view that
Israel is to blame for Iran's nuclear program has simply driven it to escalate
its attacks on Israel. This week it opened a new campaign of blaming Israel
directly - through its purported nuclear arsenal - for Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Speaking at a UN forum, US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller
said, "Universal adherence to the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] NPT
itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea... remains a
fundamental objective of the United States."
As Eli Lake from The Washington Times demonstrated convincingly, by
speaking as she did, Gottemoeller effectively abrogated a 40-year-old US-Israeli
understanding that the US would remain silent about Israel's nuclear program
because it understood that it was defensive, not offensive in nature. In so
doing, Gottemoeller legitimized Iran's claim that it cannot be expected to
suspend its quest to acquire nuclear weapons as long as Israel possesses them.
She also erased any distinction between nuclear weapons in the hands of US
allies and democratic states and nuclear weapons in the hands of US enemies and
terror states.
The Israeli media are largely framing the story of the US's growing and
already unprecedented antagonism toward Israel as a diplomatic challenge for
Netanyahu. To meet this challenge, it is argued that Netanyahu must come to
Washington in 10 days' time with an attractive peace plan that will win over the
White House. But this is a false interpretation of what is happening.
Even Ethan Bronner of the The New York Times pointed out this week
that Obama's Middle East policy is not based on facts. If it were, the so-called
"two state solution," which has failed repeatedly since 1993, would
not be its centerpiece. Obama's Middle East policy is based on ideology, not
reality. Consequently, it is immune to rational argument.
The fact that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all chance of peace between
Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and the Arab world will disappear, is of
no interest to Obama and his advisers. They do not care that the day after Hamas
terror-master Khaled Mashaal told The New York Times that Hamas was
suspending its attacks against Israel from Gaza, the Iranian-controlled terror
regime took credit for several volleys of rockets shot against Israeli civilian
targets from Gaza. The administration stills intends to give Gaza $900 million
in US taxpayer funds, and it still demands that Israel give its land to a joint
Fatah-Hamas government.
REGARDLESS OF the weight of Netanyahu's arguments, and irrespective of the
reasonableness of whatever diplomatic initiative he presents to Obama, he can
expect no sympathy or support from the White House.
As a consequence, the operational significance of the administration's
anti-Israel positions is that Israel will not be well served by adopting a more
accommodating posture toward the Palestinians and Iran. Indeed, perversely, what
the Obama administration's treatment of Israel should be making clear to the
Netanyahu government is that Israel should no longer take Washington's views
into account as it makes its decisions about how to advance Israel's national
security interests. This is particularly true with regard to Iran's nuclear
weapons program.
Rationally speaking, the only way the Obama administration could reasonably
expect to deter Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear installations would be if
it could make the cost for Israel of attacking higher than the cost for Israel
of not attacking. But what the behavior of the Obama administration is
demonstrating is that there is no significant difference in the costs of the two
options.
By blaming Israel for the absence of peace in the Middle East while ignoring
the Palestinians' refusal to accept Israel's right to exist; by seeking to build
an international coalition with Europe and the Arabs against Israel while
glossing over the fact that at least the Arabs share Israel's concerns about
Iran; by exposing Israel's nuclear arsenal and pressuring Israel to disarm while
in the meantime courting the ayatollahs like an overeager bridegroom, the Obama
administration is telling Israel that regardless of what it does, and what
objective reality is, as far as the White House is concerned, Israel is to
blame.
This, of course, doesn't mean that Netanyahu shouldn't make his case to Obama
when they meet and to the American people during his US visit. What it does mean
is that Netanyahu should have no expectation that Israeli goodwill can divert
Obama from the course he has chosen. And again, this tells us two things:
Israel's relations with the US during Obama's tenure in office will be
unpleasant and difficult, and the damage that Israel will cause to that
relationship by preventing Iran from acquiring the means to destroy it will be
negligible.
Signs and Events
Holocaust was pretext
for Israel's creation
|
|
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday
branded Israel a "racist government," charging the West with
dispossessing the Palestinians "on the pretext of Jewish
suffering from World War II."
The remarks seemingly living up to concerns that the
United Nations conference on racism which he was addressing would turn
into a forum to vilify the Jewish state.
The
comments sparked a mass walk-out of the conference hall by dozens of
Western delegates to the summit.
Ahmadinejad accused Israel of "being the most
cruel and racist regime," sparking a walkout by angry Western
diplomats at the conference and protests from others.
In a rambling speech, Ahmadinejad on Monday pointed
the finger at the United States, Europe and Israel and said they were
"destabilizing the entire world."
Some European diplomats immediately walked out of
the room when Ahmadinejad said Israel was "created on the pretext
of Jewish suffering from World War II."
"The UN security council has stabilized this
occupation regime and supported it in the last 60 years giving them a
free hand to continue their crimes," Ahmadinejad said.
"What were the root causes of the U.S. attacks
against Iraq or invasion of Afghanistan?" the Iranian president
said. "The Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses ... wasn't
the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists ... in the
U.S. administration, in complicity with the arms manufacturing
companies?"
"The Security Council made it possible for that
illegitimate government to be set up," Ahmadinejad said.
"For 60 years, this government was supported by the world. Many
Western countries say they are fighting racism, but in fact support it
with occupation, bombings and crimes committed in Gaza. These
countries support the criminals."
A wigged protester shouting "Racist!
racist!" threw a soft red object at
Ahmadinejad, hitting the podium and interrupting his
speech.
Ahmadinejad's
speech came as Israel prepared to mark its own Holocaust Remembrance
Day. The Iranian leader has repeatedly claimed the Holocaust never
happened and has called repeatedly for Israel's destruction.
The president also criticized the United States,
which had boycotted the conference along with a host of other
countries, accusing it of invading Iraq and Afghanistan solely to
"expand its sphere of control."
The first anti-racism conference, held in Durban,
South Africa in 2001, was dominated by condemnation of Israel, which
led to a walk-out by the United States and Israel.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon condemned Ahmadinejad for his
tirade against Israel.
Ban says the Iranian leader "used his speech to
accuse, divide and even incite, directly opposing the aim of the
meeting."
"Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should
have no place in a UN anti-racism forum," said British ambassador
Peter Gooderham, whose country chose not to send a minister to Geneva.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said
Ahmadinejad's statement were "offensive, inflammatory and utterly
unacceptable."
But he defended the UK's decision to participate in
the conference, saying that "nor should we leave the
international stage only to those, like President Ahmedinejad, who
would take global efforts against racism backwards."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy called
Ahmadinejad's speech an "intolerable appeal for racist
hatred."
The French president "totally condemns this
speech of hatred," his office said in a press statement, adding
that Sarkozy "is calling for an extremely firm reaction by the
European Union."
The U.S. deputy envoy to the UN called Ahmadinejad's
speech "vile and hateful."
"It does a grave injustice to the Iranian
nation and the Iranian people, and we call on the Iranian leadership
to show much more measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric
when dealing with issues in the region," U.S. Deputy Ambassador
Alejandro Wolff said.
Norwegian Foreign Minster Jonas Gahr Store, who was
the first speaker to take the floor after Ahmadinejad's speech, said
he "strongly rejected" Ahmadinejad's remarks.
Store said that Ahmadinejad had set himself apart
from others, violating the spirit of the conference.
"Norway will not accept that 'the odd man out'
kidnaps the efforts for the many," he said.
Actor Jon Voight, a staunch Israel supporter, also
lashed out at the Iranian president.
"I am here today as a voice - for the love of
freedom, for the love of democracy, for the love of life ... freedom
to be who we wish to be and freedom to worship how we want to worship
... and to denounce the regime of evil that permeates from Ahamdinejad
an all his evil followers," Voight told the press.
Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, who
was hauled away by authorities on Sunday after attempting to confront
Ahmadinejad during his meeting with the Swiss president in a Geneva
hotel, said: "Ahmadinejad is trying to turn human rights into
human wrongs by excluding from the human rights agenda more than half
of humanity - women, Bahais, gays, Jews, non-Muslims and dissenters.
He must fail, as tyrants before him have failed."
"If there was any doubt about what Ahmadinejad
and conference organizers Iran, Libya, Pakistan and their allies had
in mind as they planned Durban II, it has now been made abundantly
clear," said Dr. Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish
Congress."
It should surprise no one that Ahmadinejad, an
avowed Holocaust denier and sponsor of international terror, would
vent forth the hatred, vitriol and lies that he spewed during his
address to the Durban II delegates."
"President Ahmadinejad's remarks earlier today,
describing Israel as a 'racist government' established on the
'pretext' of Jewish suffering, were offensive, inflammatory and
utterly unacceptable," said British Foreign Minister David
Miliband. "That such remarks were made using the platform of the
UN’s anti-racism conference is all the more reprehensible."
|
|