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.