Playing the 'Nakba' Card

As Israelis watched fireworks, went to barbeques and celebrated Yom Ha'atzmaut, American media coverage of Israel's 60th anniversary was overwhelmingly canned and formulaic. For every veteran of the Haganah featured, there was an accompanying interview with a Palestinian who left his home in Israel in 1948. For every examination of the significance of six decades of Israel's independence, there was a reference to what Palestinians call the "nakba," or catastrophe.

This symmetry, evident in features, articles, op-eds and interviews that appeared over the weeks leading up to the start of the 60th celebrations, may have made self-satisfied editors believe they were demonstrating their impartiality.  In fact, they established a false moral equivalency between the founding of Israel and a Palestinian "catastrophe," feeding into a dangerous misperception of what happened 60 years ago and what must happen today.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (18)

'Neutral' on Israel's security

Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey's visit to Teheran was billed as an opportunity to deliver a stern message about the need for Iran to end its human rights violations and its threats to destroy Israel. This was according to the government's official announcement of her March 17 diplomatic visit.

As a secondary matter, the announcement noted, Calmy-Rey would attend the signing of a gas deal between Iran and a Swiss energy company.

But Calmy-Rey herself inadvertently exposed the flimsy human rights pretext when she acknowledged on the day of her departure that she was traveling to Teheran in response to Iran's invitation.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (16)

Why the US and moderate Arabs need each other

Relating American interests in the larger Middle East to the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a necessary and sometimes controversial element of US policy making.

During the Cold War, two predominant models emerged.  Zbignew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, postulated the concept that protection of key American interests -- limiting Soviet influence and retaining access to Mideast oil -- required achieving as soon as possible a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Brzezinski and Carter saw obstacles to American interests in the continuing conflict and saw great advantages for the US in the larger region if the conflict were resolved.

The problems with this approach were many and were so evident to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who sought progress toward peace, that he decided to go it alone with Israel, much to the initial dismay of the Carter Administration.  First, it was unreal to expect all the Arabs, including the radicals, to reach peace with Israel.  Second, it put an unreasonable weight on the Israeli-Arab conflict to influence the many other conflicts and challenges in the region. And third, it was a process that would inevitably lead to undue pressure on Israel, the logic being that if this was the key to all America's problems in the region, and if as anyone could see the Arabs weren't ready, then advocates of such an approach would invariably play the mind game of telling themselves "If only Israel would make the appropriate concessions."

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (10)

Even in tough times, there is much to be positive about

Times have been tough for Israel. There has been the heinous terrorist attack at Mercaz HaRav; the rocket bombardment from Gaza; the appalling bias against Israel from the UN Human Rights Council; the prospect that the infamous Durban conference will have a second act; the continuing threat from Hizbullah; and above all, the growing menace from an approaching nuclear Iran, a menace which is not met with a sense of urgency by the international community.

There is no wishing away these many challenges. Israel and its leaders will have to rise to the occasion time and time again to meet these many threats. But the proverbial glass should be seen as half full rather than half empty.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (9)

President Bush's push for peace

The underlying principle of President Bush's statement on the Israel-Palestinian peace process, probably his most definitive comments since his June 24, 2002 address, is that the conflict is not a zero-sum game. It is rather one that if appropriate steps are taken by both sides, all will benefit. To be pro-Israeli is not to be anti-Palestinian, and to be pro-Palestinian is not to be anti-Israel.

In the course of his statement, the President reiterated a number of fundamental points that are important in achieving peace and in reassuring Israel.

Most important is his clear position that a Palestinian state cannot happen if terrorism continues ("No agreement and no Palestinian state will be born of terror"). The lack of equivocation here should send important signals both to Palestinians and Israelis.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (30)

After the NIE: where do we go from here?

There are many caveats to the screaming headlines that the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has declared that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The caveats not only reinforce the fact that the medium-term threat from a nuclear Iran is still very much before us, but also should call into question the conclusion of many that any immediate sense of urgency should be removed from the discussion.

The caveats involve both the language of the NIE report itself and interpretations of the meaning of some of the NIE statements and conclusions.

First, despite the implication of the headlines that Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003 until the current time, in fact there is ambiguity in the NIE as to whether Iran has continued to halt the program. Carefully using words like "high confidence" meaning quite sure based on confirmed quality sources, and "moderate confidence" which suggests plausible sources but not fully corroborated, the NIE attributes "high confidence" to its judgment that Iran halted its weapons program in 2003; and "high confidence" that this "halt lasted at least several years"; but only "moderate confidence" that Iran had not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (8)

The American people are on our side

The American-Israeli agenda these days is a very full one. The approaching Annapolis conference, the Iran nuclear issue, questions about US-Syrian relations, technological cooperation on speeding up anti-missile technology, and efforts to involve moderate Arabs in a more constructive way are among the many issues facing the two countries.

In light of this heavy agenda, as well as concerns over the impact of the books by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and by Jimmy Carter attacking the American Jewish community, we at ADL thought it important to gauge American public opinion vis-à-vis Israel and Middle East issues. We've done so in a survey of 2,000 Americans conducted by our longtime pollster, The Marttila Communications Group.

The news overall, with some hiccups, is good and solid support for Israel, whether on questions of sympathy or on American interests. And, at least for now, the vast majority of Americans reject the notions about Jews and American Middle East policy purveyed by Mearsheimer and Walt.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (0)