Editor’s Notes: Look who’s (almost) talking
By DAVID HOROVITZ, JPOST

The dispute over the modalities of peace negotiations was only the first, and the least, of the problems

With Mahmoud Abbas now seeking Arab League approval for the launch of indirect “proximity” talks with Israel, we are belatedly back to where things stood on the eve of Vice President Joe Biden’s unhappy visit to Israel seven weeks ago.

Biden’s was a long-planned trip intended to reassure Israel about the Obama administration’s oft-stated “unbreakable, unshakable” commitment to Israel. But it was also timed to coincide with the scheduled launch of the indirect talks.

While the Israeli announcement of planned new construction at Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem that was mainly populated without controversy during Yitzhak Rabin’s premiership, has been universally understood to have torpedoed many of the positive aims of the Biden visit, and the intended launch of the proximity talks, too, the truth, as so often, is rather more complicated.

The Ramat Shlomo announcement did indeed blight the visit. But Biden accepted Israel’s explanations and apologies for the embarrassing timing of a decision in an area of policy – the question of Israeli building in Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhoods – where the US and Israel have a longstanding fundamental disagreement. What has not hitherto been made known is that the Biden visit exposed a second crisis, regarding the modalities of the proximity talks.

Broadly speaking, three separate sources have confirmed in the past few days, Israel understood that it was agreeing to enter the shortest-possible sequence of indirect contacts, mediated by special envoy George Mitchell and his team, between Jerusalem and Ramallah, and that these would quickly be superseded by a resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on the core issues. By contrast, the Palestinian Authority understood that it was consenting to some four months of indirect talks, grappling substantively with core issues.

When each side realized that it had a very different impression of the “proximity” modalities, frustrations erupted among all three players, the scheduled launch of those talks was rendered impossible, and that intended crowning element of the Biden visit was scuppered.

The diplomacy of the past seven weeks has been concentrated on reconciling those conflicting impressions, to find parameters that both sides can live with, amid what the US delicately calls the two sides’ mutual doubts and suspicions. The guarded optimism of the last few days, including public comments by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas, indicates that a formula has been found.

My understanding is that, although Israel wanted direct talks as close to straight away as possible, the proximity talks may indeed last for several months, but that the US and Israel would certainly be pleased if it proves possible to move into the direct framework sooner. Moreover, while aspects of some final-status issues will be raised in the indirect framework, the knottiest matters of dispute will still necessarily be addressed in the direct-talk phase. As Jerusalem sees it, there’s not much point in debating matters of critical substance via a third party when Ramallah is a 20-minute drive away.

SO MUCH for the modalities.

As regards matters of substance, the plain, unfortunate fact remains that not only are Israel and the Palestinians deeply and predictably at odds, so too are Israel and the Obama administration.

The administration argues that since Israel regards an accommodation with the Palestinians as central to its capacity to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, the Netanyahu government should be doing whatever it can to create the climate for such an accommodation. It argues further that since the US is strategically committed to Israel’s Jewish and democratic well-being, its work to foster such an accommodation is emphatically an American strategic interest, and it wonders why it gets criticized for describing its efforts in those terms.

It may have accepted that Netanyahu’s publicly stated “red lines” mean he will not order a halt to building in Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhoods, it may have persuaded the Palestinians to enter proximity talks without such a declared halt, but it thinks Netanyahu’s position is unhelpful – unhelpful to Israel.

It claims, furthermore, not to quite understand what it is that Netanyahu is offering or planning to offer the Palestinians, and The Jerusalem Post’s report earlier this week that the government has no plans to dismantle so much as an unauthorized West Bank outpost in the foreseeable future won’t have helped. Noting that former prime minister Ehud Olmert failed to cut a deal with Abbas when, having left Gaza, Israel offered almost all of the West Bank, the division of Jerusalem and a readiness to resolve the Palestinian refugee issue without altering Israel’s demographic balance, the Americans wonder why Netanyahu thinks he might have more success when trying to drive what the prime minister has described as “a harder bargain.”

And where the latest ostensible bust-up between Netanyahu and Barack Obama in late March is concerned, some in the administration are asking why the prime minister so fervently sought the presidential ear when it turned out he had nothing particularly dramatic to convey.

The insistence from Washington is that the last thing this administration wants to do, contrary to certain reports, is to change the Israeli government. It believes Netanyahu has the ability and the credibility to achieve an agreement with Abbas. It just doesn’t know whether he wants to.

(In Jerusalem, incidentally, it is firmly asserted that Netanyahu did not seek that March White House meeting in the first place, but rather was invited by the president after it became clear that Obama was not going to be away in Indonesia as originally scheduled.)

Nonetheless, the administration does appreciate that Netanyahu was willing to sanction the 10-month settlement-home moratorium, and it has detected other shifts in his stance of late. One of these was his widely overlooked statement, in his Channel 2 interview last week, that the final status of Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem such as Abu Dis and Shuafat would need to be addressed in the final-status talks – a stance that is more in keeping with the long-time Labor position about Jews not having prayed to Shuafat during their centuries of exile, and rather less in tune with the traditional Likud opposition to any territorial concessions within post-1967 Israeli-claimed sovereign Jerusalem.

A second, again largely overlooked change in stance was Netanyahu’s declared readiness, in his late March speech to AIPAC, to “review security arrangements” if a peace deal with the Palestinians were to “prove its durability over time.”

The prime minister made this unprecedented concession after stating that, because of the missile and other military threats that an independent Palestine might pose, “a peace agreement with the Palestinians must include an Israeli presence on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state.”

Essentially, therefore, Netanyahu was saying that Israeli security deployment in the Jordan Valley, and other Israeli security requirements, could be reconsidered, and need not be permanent, if peaceful reconciliation was palpably developing.

THE MOST profound difference between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu coalition, however, relates to the gauging of Abbas’s peacemaking intentions.

Although it concedes the possibility that Abbas is only entering the proximity talks in order to create a sense of momentum and then blame Israel for an inevitable breakdown, Washington believes Abbas is prepared to endorse viable terms for peace. Jerusalem does not.

In the Prime Minister’s Office, there is full awareness that the international community is growing ever more supportive of Palestinian statehood, with ever less empathy for Israel’s concerns and reservations.

Despite Abbas’s insistence this week that he was not seeking “unilateral solutions” and that his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, would not unilaterally declare statehood next year, the conviction among many in Netanyahu’s orbit is that the PA is aiming eventually to secure a new UN resolution for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders, with a fudging of the refugee issue. Aiming, that is, to establish a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel, but to continue the conflict with Israel. (It is noted in these circles that Fayyad’s published program for his government from last August, “Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,” mentions Israel overwhelmingly in negative contexts, and contains no direct, unambiguous reference to making peace with Israel.)

While the administration pays great heed to Abbas’s repeated restating of his support for a two-state solution, and gives serious weight to the representations of President Shimon Peres, no less, to the effect that Abbas does not intend to seek to flood Israel with refugees, those around Netanyahu do not share the sense that Abbas will make an historic reconciliation.

It is asserted, indeed, that not a single one of Israel’s key decision-makers consider that Abbas is ready for such a move. Different ministers might be prepared to offer more or less in the effort to change that rejectionist mindset, but their conclusion, for now, is unanimous and bleak. Netanyahu, incidentally, is said to sit in the relatively more optimistic camp – being given to wondering aloud in certain meetings whether the Palestinian leader might yet somehow rise to the occasion.

The word from within the coalition is that if Abbas is indeed prepared to take viable positions on the refugee issue, this welcome news has certainly not reached the government’s ear. If he stands by some of the demilitarization arrangements that Tzipi Livni and others have suggested he supports, again, this government has seen or heard nothing categorical to that effect.

And while it is acknowledged that making a speech abandoning the impossible demand for a “right of return” might be too much to ask from Abbas at the start of the new negotiating effort, then why can he not, it is asked in Jerusalem, at least publicly acknowledge the Jewish connection to this land?

The thinking around the prime minister is that the PA leader’s interview with The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl last May, smartly headlined “Abbas’s waiting game,” still represents the best guide to his thinking. Abbas explained then that he had not acceded to Olmert’s offer because “the gaps were wide,” and time was on the Palestinians’ side: “In the West Bank we have a good reality,” Abbas said contentedly. “The people are living a normal life.”

Interestingly, it is noted in Jerusalem, the Palestinians are these days talking a little differently about the Olmert offer. In last year’s narrative, as exemplified by the Diehl interview, it was the substance that was problematic – those insufficient terms, those gaps. In the newer narrative, Olmert was spurned because of the issue of “delivery” – the concern that a lame duck PM might not be able to come through on the deal.

In the American read, Abbas’s rejection of Olmert is regarded both as a function of Olmert’s weakness, and, as noted above, as proof that Netanyahu is unlikely to attain a deal offering any less. In Jerusalem, the counterargument is that if Abbas balked because of the substance of the offer, then any Netanyahu gambit will indeed fail. Only if it was a matter of delivery is there some faint hope for progress now with Netanyahu’s less generous terms. “Faint” being the operative term.

No, it is stressed, without elaboration, Netanyahu will not be offering Abbas everything he wants. But if Abbas’s problem was with a soon-to-depart Olmert who might not be able to make good on a very generous deal, then maybe he can be enticed by a less generous deal from a more credible prime minister.

But the overall assessment stressed by those around the prime minister is of an uncompromising Abbas, leaping on any American pressure on Israel, giving nothing, and holding to his own “absurd” demands.

Netanyahu, it is said, was ready to announce the 10-month settlement freeze late last summer, as part of a package of expected mutual goodwill measures in the aftermath of Obama’s Cairo Muslim-outreach speech, but he held back because the US could not secure any reciprocal gestures from the Palestinian and wider Arab side.

The view in Jerusalem is that Abbas was stringing the international community along in the last few months until it became clear, only recently, that the US was no longer coddling the Palestinians, that Obama was growing impatient with him, and that the PA really needed to enter the proximity talks.

And it is noted that Abbas has lately abandoned the former insistent assertion of the Palestinians’ right to determine their own fate and instead handed to the Arab League decision-making rights as to whether and how negotiations might proceed. This might have had advantages if the Arab League were supportive of genuine steps forward. Far more probable, though, was that it would make constructive progress even less likely.

AS REGARDS the ongoing US-Israel tensions, there is sorrow in Jerusalem that the building disputes that have fueled the most controversy with Washington are precisely those that should have been the least problematic.

Gilo is a robust Jewish neighborhood in the capital that Israel would never contemplate relinquishing. Much the same can be said for Ramat Shlomo. Yet because of the deeply inauspicious timing of the announcement of new building in both those neighborhoods, they triggered more bitter public recriminations from the US than have much more potentially controversial projects elsewhere beyond the Green Line.

The firm hope in Jerusalem is that future such disputes can be avoided, but where there are differences, that the American response be better calibrated.

There is also, finally, a slightly shamefaced, very off-the-record, admission here that the “east” Jerusalem building crises were somewhat exacerbated by the fact that certain unnamed senior Israelis aren’t always as knowledgeable as they should be regarding what actually constitutes “east” Jerusalem. That is, they’re not as familiar as they ought to be about which neighborhoods are located beyond the Green Line and which are not. They don’t always know which areas, even if they may accurately be described geographically as situated in “south” or “north” Jerusalem, are nonetheless politically located in the ultra-sensitive “east” of the city.

Implausible? Impossible? You’d think so. But evidently not.

I’ll leave it at that. We’ve all seen the consequences.

Dear Prime Minister

My purpose in writing to you and that of my colleague is to thank you for standing strong against the two state “solution” and to give you encouragement to stay the course.

President Obama has set forth, in the most brutal way that, in preference to the people of Israel continuing to live on its ancestral homeland, the United States will accept a nuclear Iran, with all the destabilization that would inevitably result. In effect, President Obama has said that the US might (might) save Israel from lynching but on condition that we drink strychnine. In fact, however, by the end of the two to three year period that his timetable sets for the drinking of strychnine, the lynching will have been completed, God forbid! But we are required to drink it anyway.

In fact, I am sure I need not explain to you that every administration since the formulation of the Rogers Plan has followed the same policy. In fact, American policy toward the Zionist enterprise is unchanged since the Balfour Declaration: strong public declarations of support and even demonstrations of unstinting support, coupled with behind-the-scenes duplicity and even treachery. Shmuel Katz has detailed this, and it is neatly set forth in detail with copious citations by Prof. Francisco Gil-White at http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm in Is the US an ally of Israel? A chronological look at the evidence.

Israel has danced around this issue, dealing with it as well as it could and has navigated though better and worse periods. This time, however, looks like “the crunch.” We are to be presented with a diktat backed up by the US, the EU, the UN, Russia and the Arab League together with an ultimatum.

Israel does not have to accede. Israel is not without alternatives or without recourse. Israel is able to go it alone, against the will of the USA, against the will of the “Quartet”, the UN and the Arab League. There are several powerful tools in Israel’s hands.

Israeli military technology. Not many people realize that Israel is the country of innovation in hi-tech munitions and in asymmetrical warfare. Israel is practically in a position to embargo hi-tech weaponry from any country in the world, including the US. The Popeye missile is hardly even the threshold.

Israel’s military technology is very advanced and many of Israel’s technologies and products are unique and superior. The world will not likely boycott them. As the worldwide jihad expands, Israel’s expertise and experience in combating Islamic terror will become a more and more marketable commodity. The non-Islamic world has reason to realize that Israel’s war against Islamic terror is their own war and not colonialist apartheid oppression as it is portrayed. If they do not come to realize it, then they will sink into Islamic domination. There is no reason for Israel to sink with them.

Israeli governments seem chronic in their underestimation of the value to the world of Israeli military technology. The Popeye missile and the unmanned drones are only two. Israeli electronics took apart the best Soviet made anti-aircraft systems in Syria as long ago as 1967, to the shock of the Soviets. Development of Israeli military technology has accelerated since then. Many of those technologies have been acquired in secret by the United States, in some cases via threats and intimidation. Israeli tank sights were acquired by the United States and installed on its Abrams tanks, which are now assembled in Egypt, with Israeli sights. Likewise, intelligence supplied to the United States by Israel has been invaluable. Yet, to Americans, seeing only billions of dollars of “aid” being given to Israel and not seeing that, in fact, the US gets more than its money’s worth, Israel looks like a beggar at the gate.

On the other side, Israel has come to see itself as a welfare dependent, feeling utterly dependent on the American dole. Israel has to insist that acquisition by foreign governments of Israeli arms technology, consultation and training (in urban warfare in Iraq, for example) and other strategic cooperation be done only in public and not secretly. Insisting on legitimacy means refusing to be treated like the “other woman” in order not to offend the Muslim states.

Regrettably, Israel scrapped the Kfir under US pressure and closed Beit Shemesh Engines. But Israel makes its own rocket engines, which function under more extreme conditions than jet aircraft engines. Israel certainly could also make engines for jet aircraft. Doing so in partnership with India alone would create a market large enough to enjoy economies of scale and India is eager for closer cooperation with Israel.

Withstanding international pressures. Israel need not fear international pressure, even boycotts and sanctions. There are too many other countries in positions similar to Israel’s with regard to Moslem minorities and external defense to isolate Israel for long. India, for one, has growing and developing ties with Israel owing in part to the fact that its history of appeasement of its Moslem minority has not bought it peace and security. It has need of technology sharing and joint projects with Israel and that would likely continue despite international sanctions. China and Japan have also found collaboration with Israel very productive.

An Israel-India Axis. President Obama, in his arrogance, has hectored not only Israel to surrender to Islamic demands, but also India, whom he told that the reason they do not have peace with Pakistan is because India has not surrendered Kashmir. This he could actually say when Pakistan is in grave danger of being taken over by the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

In fact, Israel and India are natural allies in many ways and complementary to each other in many ways. The combined resources, brain power, technology and manufacturing capacity would be formidable from the outset. I propose that ties with India be pursued with utmost urgency and that Israeli foreign policy be reoriented immediately to make India the central point, immediately replacing the US and Europe.

Additional states. There are other states that President Obama has already alienated which could be brought into such a grouping. Colombia, with the assistance of Israeli military advisors, is near to victory against Marxist rebels. They have found, even before Obama was sworn into office that his emissaries have been in contact with the rebels with a view to actually taking their side. Colombia has fresh reason to reduce its dependence on the US.

Almost the same story is taking place in Sri Lanka. The complication for Israel is long standing bad blood between Sri Lanka and India. It is conceivable, however, that Israel could be instrumental in mediating that problem to the extent that they could cooperate in formulating and pursuing a new foreign policy orientation. If not, there seems to be no impediment to continuation of good and close bilateral relations.

Taiwan is another pariah state with which Israel might develop important relations. Israel has a choice between Taiwan and China, of course, but China is not averse to doing deals that are inimical to Israel’s vital interests and, if pushed to decide, Israel might consider whether a permanent relationship with Taiwan might not be more advantageous.

Strategic cooperation with India. Within the immediate horizons, Israel and India might do something of utmost importance together. I refer to the twin threats of Iranian nuclear weapons and Pakistani nuclear weapons. The former directly threatens Israel. The latter directly threatens India. If Israel and India help each other, it might be possible to eliminate both. To fly from India might not bring Israel closer to the Iranian nuclear plants but it would have the advantage of not having to cross airspace under American control. I do not have sufficient knowledge to say but I question whether it is necessary at all to use manned aircraft for the purpose when Israel has both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to do the job.

Nor is it necessary to destroy the nuclear facilities themselves. The suggestion comes from a colleague, formerly a very high level engineer prominent in the F-16 project, that the nuclear facilities cannot function if the infrastructure is knocked out. They are useless without electricity and water and raw materials. I do not know enough to say whether Israel has a good possibility of destroying or disrupting the nuclear facilities but Israel can certainly cripple Iran’s infrastructure, bomb the Majlis and the mullas and the Presidential Palace and even hunt down the scientists involved in the nuclear project.

Of course, the world would be outraged and might even apply serious sanctions against Israel and India. We could withstand those, both Israel and India. It would require considerable economic reorientation and restructuring but it is high time that took place anyway. Both countries would emerge stronger, more independent and more democratic for having done so.

It would involve getting off the global corporate “grid” and developing the local economy independent of the multinational mega-corporations and the corporate “solutions” that only a very few such giant corporations can deliver. They are frequently not the best solutions for the market or for anyone else, but only for the global mega-corporations.

New Zealand’s recent history in agriculture provides an important point of reference. In 1986, the government of New Zealand decided to eliminate all agricultural subsidies over a period of only three years. They did that in the face of dire warnings of economic collapse of the agricultural sector. In the end, only about one percent of New Zealand farms went bankrupt and within only six years, agriculture had become the strongest sector of the New Zealand economy, whereas it had been an economic basket case before 1986. What happened is instructive on many levels.

Because the policies pursued by the New Zealand government had been similar to those pursued by other Western countries, agriculture had come to be dominated by corporations, especially petro-chemical companies. Those companies produce the agricultural chemicals that have become endemic to Western farming and are a central element in what is touted as the “Green Revolution” that supposedly enables the world to increase food production via hybrid seeds, massive chemicalization and heavy mechanization. When subsidies were eliminated, small farmers responded by eliminating the use of agricultural chemicals. Productivity soared such that farm profits increased even as farm prices fell. Agricultural commodities across the board sell for half to two thirds their prices in Western Europe, where agriculture is heavily subsidized. Petrochemical companies sold their farms and the family farm has made a strong come-back in New Zealand.

The government had, in effect, been subsidizing the use of chemicals, which is the corporate solution that had monopolized the attention of the market, of governments, universities and the media for decades. It turned out that the corporate solution could not compete on a level playing field. The petro-chemical corporate “farmers” could not make a profit unless they sold their chemicals twice: once subsumed in the price of the produce and once in the form of governmental subsidies.

One would think that the world should have noticed that the much touted “Green Revolution” is a failure, if not a massive fraud altogether, but that has not happened. The universities, the media, the farmers’ own associations and the world’s governments have all ignored the New Zealand experience. Even New Zealand never mentions it. It does not fit the corporate image and is not what we are encouraged to notice. See, for example, http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=62576&owner=(International%20Herald%20Tribune)&date=20020627153521 New Zealand‘s aid-free farm boom, By Andrew Johnston (International Herald Tribune), Wednesday, June 26, 2002.

A second case in point: How Cuba Survived the Collapse of the Grid

In 1989, at about the same time as the New Zealand experience was unfolding, Cuba was forced off the Grid by the collapse of the Soviet empire. The Soviet Union had been the supplier of 80% of Cuba’s imports, including energy, and the buyer of 80% of Cuba’s production. That consisted mainly of sugar, tobacco and citrus, all grown by plantation agriculture characterized by monoculture using massive amounts of chemical pesticides, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides: the Green Revolution, in brief. Cuba exported almost all of its agricultural production and imported almost all of its food.

When the Soviet empire collapsed, Cuba suddenly had no supplier of petroleum and other imports, and no customers for its produce. That meant no money, which meant very little food and precious little petroleum and that in turn meant nearly no agricultural chemicals. Cuba today uses less than 5% of the amount of agricultural chemicals that it used before 1989.

With no market for its cash crops, the country’s agriculture had to turn from plantation agriculture to local farming and had to do so quickly. Cuba began to grow its own food. There was no gasoline for the tractors but there were a few oxen and there was manpower.

To the credit of the Cuban people, there were no food riots, no looting. Civil order did not break down. Pilfering from community gardens was not extensive enough to become a problem. People got together as communities and began planting food in any available patch of ground. Flat roofs are now vegetable gardens. Out of necessity, they used techniques from outside the “green revolution.” People came from Australia to teach the Cubans “permaculture,” which requires very little water, no chemicals and relatively very little labor. (More on that below.)

Havana, a densely populated city of more than two million, produces 80-85% of its own food. Less crowded cities produce an even higher percentage of theirs. Cuba today exports bio-pesticides and bio-fertilizers, which the Cubans have learned to produce. Still, the world adamantly refuses to notice that the green revolution is a failure at best, probably a fraud and possibly a crime.

Israeli agriculture is in dire need of restructuring. I came on aliyah in 1984 and economists already then were pointing out the irrationality of Israeli agriculture’s dependence on resources in very short supply in Israel: energy, water, labor and money. They pointed out, even then, that it was irrational for Israel to subsidize the export of water to Europe in the form of fruits and vegetables. It is even more irrational now and will be impossible should Europe join in sanctions against Israel.

There is a new agricultural technology that eschews monoculture and the massive chemicalization and mechanization that are required for monoculture. It requires no chemicals, very little water, little mechanization and not much labor. It sounds too good to be true but it is true. It is called “permaculture” and I even have a permaculture expert whom I can recommend to give instruction. She in turn has her teachers and there are others. It is a system that is functioning in Israel and it can be seen in operation.

There are other technologies in existence that can free Israel and the world from the grip of Middle East petroleum. One is based on the work of Nikola Tesla which could provide essentially free power to everyone in the world, as Tesla proposed in the 1920’s. Financing for Tesla’s project, however, was thwarted by banking interests committed to petroleum. An American scientist believes he has discovered how Tesla could tap into the static charge of Planet Earth. Israel is the ideal location. He offered it to two different Israeli Ministers of National Infrastructure and both ignored it. I propose that Israel test it and develop it.

Another is an Israeli project that can transform algae into crude oil, turning petroleum into an agricultural product, requiring only flat land with reliable sunlight (such as desert) near water or any degree of salinity. It is in Israel’s interest that projects such as this be developed and exploited everywhere in the world. With this technology, Australia, for example, could produce as much crude oil as Saudi Arabia. Israel should also give urgent consideration to a water tunnel from the Mediterranean to Dead Sea with hydro-electric and reverse osmosis desalination plants along the way. There are other clean energy sources, such as the energy tower proposed by Zoslowsky, solar ponds, and solar electricity fields. In addition, there is 40 million dollar’s worth of energy in sewage and other wastes that is being pumped out to sea even as you read these words.

Israel should reformulate defense policy and foreign policy doctrine to include aggressive alternative energy research and development, implementation and marketing. That should be a strategic goal. The more the world uses energy other than petroleum from OPEC countries, the more the power of international jihad is weakened and the less money there will be to finance terrorism against Israel.

Getting off the global mega-corporate grid and helping others to get off the grid will create a better society and a better world.

Independence: To the extent that Israel produces our own water, energy and food, we are beyond the reach of monopoly exploitation, foreign bullying, OPEC manipulation, price gouging and shortages.

Economic Benefit: There is cost involved in transport. No mystery. This is one reason for turning to local sources of food and energy. Even transmission of electricity costs energy. Less than 100% of the electricity that enters a transmission cable comes out the other end. The longer the transmission, the more energy is lost. Turbines and generators of all sizes are commercially available. Electric generation, from sewage, wind and solar and the technologies discussed above, can be decentralized to many locations, which would also reduce, by the way, the vulnerability of Israel’s electrical system to hostile action.

Similar benefits are to be had from producing more or even all of our food and other necessities locally.

Democracy and the future of the republic: Contemporary democracy was born in America, a place we both know well. The American Republic grew out of a society of independent farmers; the “peasant tradition.” A “peasant,” in the classic sense, is a small landowner who lives by subsistence agriculture. That is, a “peasant” produces mainly for his own family’s needs and sells the surplus in order to buy what he cannot produce.

The “Okies” were pretty much the end of the peasant tradition in America. It was finally wiped out by the Dust Bowl, farm foreclosures, employment in agribusiness in California and then assimilation into the general society. They were poor but very proud, accustomed to hard work and self-reliance and fiercely independent. They were ready to help one another with joy and alacrity but were always ready to go it alone if need be. Out of such stock and such a culture the Republic originally arose.

By the 1930’s, even before rural electrification, most family farms in America were already on the corporate grid. They were given over to large scale cash crops and distant markets, which put them on the transport grid and dependence on motor vehicles and petroleum. No longer self-sufficient, they purchased everything from the system (the “grid”). Monoculture meant mechanization of agriculture which in turn meant borrowing large sums from the banks, another grid. Each step meant more acreage devoted to cash crops and less to their own needs. At the same time, government programs were implemented, such as rural electrification, which had the effect of centralizing the economy and making producers more and more dependent on large corporations. Eventually, most Americans came to work for mega-corporations, directly or indirectly. That was not entirely a function of market forces. It was due in greater or lesser part to government policy, which came to be dominated by those same corporations.

The corporate solutions came to be the only ones considered by government or considered by universities, whose research is funded by corporations interested in the outcomes; think tanks, which are staffed by people from government, academe and the executive level of the mega-corporate world; and the media, which depend on corporate advertising for their survival.

This is a process of collectivization. What is a corporation, after all, but a collectivity which is, furthermore, authoritarian and hierarchic? It is not a democratic institution. This process of collectivization has been actively pursued by governments of Western countries for about eighty years and maybe longer. At the turn of the Twentieth Century, Sweden was a rather backward country in the north woods. The economic miracle that transformed Sweden was wrought by small business. Then, during the depression, people turned to the Socialists who made an alliance with big business to control the economy. Socialism is not about social justice and not about equality. Socialism is about power.

There are many ways that government has of promoting collectivization by protecting the large corporations from competition by small business. Many of those ways take the guise of protection of the public from the evils of the big corporations. The effect is to make it so expensive and burdensome to comply with the regulations that only the very large corporations can afford to do business. The labor unions also tend to become part of the “grid.” Unions are collectivities which become hierarchical and authoritarian through anti-democratic rules which government protects from the rank and file because that enables “sweetheart contracts” with the corporate employers by benefitting the labor bosses under the table. We note again that this is frequently not the result of market forces except in the sense that government policy is a marketable “service.”

The same process of promoting dependence on mega-corporations is now proceeding internationally. It is called “globalization.” After the fall of Communism, Bulgaria fully privatized. Foreign companies invested in Bulgaria, bought up the most viable industries and moved them out of Bulgaria or simply closed them in order to eliminate the competition. They nearly bankrupted Bulgaria and set her back decades developmentally. What are Bulgarians to do then? The answer globalization gives is that Bulgarians should be free to move to follow the labor market. That is to say, they should be free to cease being Bulgarians in their own country. Likewise for Israelis, that means the solution is to cease being a free people in our own land and to go back into exile among the nations. For Jews, this is national suicide. The more Israel separates itself from the grid, the better. And the sooner the better,

I believe it is the goal of the international elite to control national policy everywhere by means of control of the companies that dominate the local economy. The elite in Israel are fully on board. This represents the globalization of the manner in which conglomerates have historically subordinated state and local governments in America.

One who believes, with Charles Wilson, that “What’s good for General Motors is good for America” will be comfortable with globalization: What’s good for General Motors and Siemens and British Petroleum and Mitsubishi, etc. is good for the whole world. Even if one is comfortable with that proposition, however, we know that what applies to “everyone” does not necessarily include the Jews. Jewish survival and Israeli independence cannot depend on the good will of the nations of the world.

I would also call your attention to the way the world’s response to the financial meltdown follows a Third World pattern. The pattern is always to privatize profits and socialize loss. The US government’s “recovery” plan so far follows the Third World pattern. President Obama’s program has even included the use of AIG to launder enormous amounts of money to foreign interests, forcing the US taxpayers to absorb the losses of the global elite. The ultimate goal is quite apparently world government, which will enable the global elite to use to the whole world in the same manner: to generate its profits and absorb its losses at taxpayers’ expense.

The world government is to be controlled by the global elite, of course. In short, this is an economic war which the ruling families of the world are waging. The goal is nothing less than total control of the world’s economic activity by a consortium of their mega-corporations under the auspices of an international government, consisting of officials who cannot be influenced or removed by democratic means and enshrining the supremacy of the super-state over the individual.

That, on a global scale, is the very essence of classic fascism and would be terrible for most people and especially terrible for the Jews. Fascistic world government can be defeated by getting people everywhere to start separating themselves from the mega-corporations’ grid and creating a grid, or grids, of their own.

Thus, getting off the global corporate grid has both a macro aspect and a micro aspect. The Grid’s financial system has been seen to be very fragile, a gigantic Ponzi scheme which cannot survive except by continually expanding. It would not take much in terms of percentage of commerce moving off the Grid to cause it to collapse.

The essential thing is that people not wait for the government to save them. The people have to save themselves. Democracy is do-it-yourself government or it is not democracy. It involves creating networks for doing business with small businesses, creating consumer and credit cooperatives or ??”??? and doing less and less business through establishment banks, creating labor unions that the members really control and otherwise avoiding dealings with the businesses controlled by the ruling elite as much as possible, and especially getting one’s news from sources they do not control.

Israel can fight back by taking a page from the book of President Obama’s mentor, Saul Alinsky: empower the people. Israel’s goal should be to empower them to take control of their own destinies and their own countries, to create their own system or systems and let the present system collapse. That decentralizes power, both internationally and within each country and each community, and disperses it to the people. It truly would empower the people. It should be a strategic goal for Israel.

America is also ripe for such a movement and I am connected to two organizations, one quite massive, which might be actually eager to take it up and do the work of community organization. Many Israelis are US citizens and we can legitimately take the battle to their home turf. Americans can help Israel by renewing and strengthening democracy in America. The American foreign policy establishment is Israel’s bitter enemy. The American people are not.

What should Israeli policy be? The Alternative, in Brief:

I submit that the alternative policy for Israel boils down to the following:

1. Eliminate the Palestinian Authority because it will never produce the peace that was intended. Its democratic election of Hamas negates the Roadmap. Hamas, in fact, negated the Roadmap and it is a dead letter.
2. Actively destroy all the terrorist organizations, specifically including the PLO and all its constituent groups;
3. Kill all the terrorists, including individual terrorists unaffiliated with a terrorist group;
4. Prosecute everyone who has aided and abetted the enemy, following such foreign precedents as the Post World War II prosecutions of “Tokyo Rose” and “Lord Haw-Haw”; everyone who obstructed justice by cover-up or partiality in the application of law or abused power to pervert state policy; everyone who made decisions based on bribery or other corruption or in service of foreign interest;
5. Redefine citizenship (full for those who serve in the IDF, and only local participation for those who do not) and enforce the law banning parties that deny the nature of Israel as a Jewish state;
6. Annex Judea and Samaria and make it clear that there will never be any authority there other than the State of Israel;
7. Equal enforcement of planning and building laws;
8. Restructure the government to provide for winner-take-all district elections to Knesset and executive appointment of judges with the consent of a special majority of the Knesset;
9. Reformulate defense policy and foreign policy to include aggressive alternative energy research, implementation and marketing;
10. Establish the centrality of Torah to Israeli education, law, policy and strategic planning. Being a Jewish state means embracing Jewish destiny. There is no other source by which to define such purpose and destiny and there is no other purpose for the state that cannot be satisfied in California, Italy, Canada, Australia or many other places. In brief, instill Torah and Jewish self-respect into Israeli education, foreign relations and defense policy.

Israel can expect to meet concerted opposition from the world to these measures. Israel can be expected to be condemned, vilified and loathed. Israel can even expect that there might be sanctions imposed. On the other hand, submission and obsequiousness and “goodwill gestures,” “confidence building measures,” territorial concessions and unconditional unilateral withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and Gaza and restraint have gotten us nothing but condemnation, vilification and loathing, deligitimation and calls for our destruction when we defended ourselves. As long as we are still alive, more concessions will be demanded of us. In contrast, Israeli and Jewish prestige and acceptance were never higher than following the Six-Day War when the nations feared and respected Israel.

Israel does not have to grovel before the Powers That Be, nor does Israel have to take it in the neck. If we only make our best efforts and have faith in Hashem, we will be shown what we need to know and we will be given the right tools to win.

Not for nothing are we known as ?????. We have the ability, inherited from our father, Avraham, ????? ???? ??? ?????, ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????. Stand firm.

Very truly yours,

Professor of Law (Emer.)

Cc: Mr. Uzi Arad

Mr. Daniel Seaman

MK Benny Begin

MK Moshe Ya’alon

The Central Bureau of Statistics, still our favorite source of GN reported today [Friday] that the period Jan/Feb produced some great figures where they really count and here are just a few:

ü The Industrial production index rose in January and February by 9.1%. We’re producing more and selling more, we’re exporting more too so …

ü The Export of goods index went up by 26.1%, following a sharp increase of 38.3% in the previous quarter.

ü Hotel overnight stays climbed by an encouraging 9% on an increase of 17% in the three months before.

Long may it continue!

· The mortality rate of heart patients in Israel is significantly lower than that of patients in Europe a new study published this month in the European Heart Journal, shows. Combined with our very high life expectancy [see last week’s GN] that’s GN indeed. Comparing data on medical treatment of serious heart attack victims in 29 European countries it showed that the percentage of Israeli heart patients in intensive care who didn’t make it, is significantly lower than 20 other European countries including France , Germany , and Britain which has almost double Israel ’s number of fatalities. The study also showed that the number of catheterizations, a more effective treatment than medication, in Israel following a heart attack is among the highest in Europe : 2,726 per million people per year. That figure is double the number in Britain and 42 percent higher than in France . Add outstanding staff and excellent facilities to all that and all in all Israel seems like a good place to be.

· Bank Hapoalim has raised NIS 1.1 billion in a bond issue. Standard & Poor’s Maalot Ltd. rated the bonds AA+; no wonder demand from the financial institutions overshot the mark by NIS 3 billion. Not finished yet. Tomorrow [Thursday] the bank will hold the offering for Mr and Mrs Israel, in which it expects to increase the amount raised to NIS 1.5 billion altogether and we’re betting that they won’t have any problem with that.

· Weizmann Institute scientists have isolated a single gene that can be hyperactivated by a protein and will then elevate anxiety levels and also increase the risk of a whole range of frightening diseases and we’ll spare you the unpleasant details. The research which has been recorded in a prestigious journal has been confined to mice but ultimately has great potential for preventative medicine in humans.

· We’re a little behind with this one but we felt it was just too good to miss. Christian Americans who were more than a little put out by the perceived treatment that our Prime Minister received on a recent visit to the US decided to make it up to him and to show their solidarity in a most beautiful way, with a bouquet of 16 000 yellow roses. Some bouquet! The PM received 100 of them and the rest went to hospitals. You’ve got to love them for loving us.

· Another poll, another batch of GN. 98% of Israelis regularly act in some way to protect our environment; recycling bottles [we reached the 3 billionth bottle last week That's the equivalent in volume to eight Azrieli Towers], paper and newsprint and not using plastic bags are just a few of the methods that we’re using. All in all 95% of the population are prepared to do what it takes to preserve the precious microcosm that we inhabit. The Recycling Corporation also contended that in just ten years Israel had reached recycling rates for bottles equivalent to that of Europe and the US – almost 70%. See, we told you it was GN. And…

· Shari Arison, one of our favorite uberexecutives who has a net worth of $3.4 billion, is second on the “Forbes” list of environment conscious business people. The prestigious magazine describes her as a “firm believer that sustainability and profitability can go hand in hand,” Arison has created businesses that benefit the environment, without taking her eye off the bottom line for one second. She plans to make her public construction company, Shikun u’Binui Holdings Ltd. [which has just started a road maintenance project worth NIS 1.2bn] 100% sustainable – by using solar power, water desalination, and recyclable materials – within five years. And what’s more…

· At a conference held this week it was decided that small wind turbines could be placed on street lighting poles along the coastal highway to take advantage of the sea winds to supply the power needed to light up the lights. Steps are also being taken to integrate systems for producing renewable energy in the infrastructure of highways. A huge number of acres of available land at interchanges can be exploited for placing photovoltaic solar arrays. Many thousands of street lights can use wind turbines and we have to admit that the idea of a little windmill atop every street lamp standard churning out good clean electricity has a definite appeal

· Arik Ze’evi claimed his eighth career European Judo Championship medal this week, defeating Artem Bloshenko of Ukraine in the under-100 kilogram division in Vienna to take home the bronze medal. Arik a three-time European champion, has now won bronze in three of the last four European championships, an Olympic bronze in the 2004 Athens Games and the European gold medal in 2001, 2003 and 2004, the silver in 2005 and the bronze in 1999, 2007, 2008 and 2010. An outstanding record from one of Israel’s greatest sportsmen.

· El Al the national carrier names a number of the aircraft in its fleet in honor of cities and towns in Israel, including Sderot, not the biggest but probably the bravest, unveiled a 767 Boeing named Daliyat al-Karmel, after Israel’s largest Druze community. The airplane took part in the Independence Day air show, a fitting tribute to a group that has shown its allegiance to the State time without number.

· What do Israelis expect of a model citizen? Well the vast majority, 80% in fact, say that the top requirement is serving the country either as a soldier or as somebody performing national service, a somewhat smaller percentage said a model citizen is tolerant and respectful of those who are ‘different’ while a quarter of the population felt that preserving tradition and religion was all important as the main attribute of the model citizen. And how can Israel best improve itself in the next decade? Most Israelis agreed that the answer to that one is by turning the population into model citizens. Sounds logical.

· After failing to defeat a top-10 player throughout 2009, Shahar Pe’er is beating the best-of-the-best on a regular basis this year. Pe’er, ranked number 20 in the world, claimed her third victory over a top-10 player in four months on Wednesday, battling back to beat No. 8 Agnieszka Radwanska 6-3, 6-7 (4), 6-2 and reach the quarterfinals of the Porsche Grand Prix in Stuttgart. So if Ze’evi is one of our all time greats [see above] then Miss Pe’er is well on the way to sharing that status and right now she is the sporting flavor of the month.

· The prestigious culinary magazine ‘Food &Wine’ has ranked Israeli chef Yonatan Roshfeld first place in its list of rising star chefs. Now Israel is not on the culinary critic’s regular beat they have to make a special trip to get here and it isn’t humus and falafel that attracts them either, so in Roshfeld’s words: “You can’t ignore the fact that, lately, Israel has been on the map of global gastronomy” Was the trip worth it? It obviously was.

· Carmit Candy Industries Ltd. has signed a contract with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to sell them chocolate coins for Christmas. The first order for December 2010 is worth $500,000. Carmit’s sales in the US totaled $8 million in 2009. A small Israeli company sells chocolate goodies [whatever happened to Hershey we ask open-mouthed?] to the US and the world’s largest retailer and for Christmas. Go figure. And on that sweet note we end this week’s GN.

By Ted Belman
What this means is that Obama has accepted that there is no diplomatic solution. As I have written many times before, he intends to impose a plan, in fact the Saudi Plan. He has already started the imposition by demanding a settlement freeze and the other things set out in this article. Negotiations are a sham. Israel will be given an erzats peace but will not get an end of conflict agreement or recognition by any Arab government that Israel is a Jewish state. We will get “normalized” relations, whatever that means.

On the other hand, Barry Rubin , The U.S.-Israel Crisis May Be Over and We Can “Celebrate” the Achievement of Nothing, believes that all that has happenned is that Obama can claim he got negotiations started, ignoring that he caused them to stop.

HaEtzni goes beyond the negotiations and concludes that it is all about imposing a plan. I agree with HaEtzni.

The Second War of Independence

By Elyakim HaEtzni

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu avoided attending the international nuclear conference in Washington in order to side step the mine that President Barack Obama had planted there for him and us.

What was the nature of that mine?

It’s not just Jerusalem or any particular clause in the document that Obama set before Netanyahu for his signature at their last meeting. At stake is the independence of the State of Israel. We are poised at the edge of a Second War of Independence, in which the Quartet, under America’s leadership, is playing the role of the British High Commissioner. Alex Fishman, in an article in “Yediot Achronot” from April 9th, details what Obama presented to Netanyahu for his
signature:

*The withdrawal of the IDF from all the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria and a large proportion of the countryside, precluding all future Israeli military operations in those areas (pretty much the only way of preventing terrorist attacks against Israeli targets);

*Allowing the Palestinian Authority to resume operations unhindered in Jerusalem;

*Obligating Israel to cease any present or future building in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, amounting to the de facto division of the capitol.

In addition, Obama demanded that Netanyahu continue the building freeze in Judea and Samaria indefinitely and hand over parts of Area C to the Ramallah authorities, changing its status to Area A, which prohibits Israelis from setting foot there. Obama required Netanyahu to relinquish the northern Dead Sea and parts of the Jordan Valley to enable the PA to develop tourism there.

All this must take place immediately, before the beginning of negotiations, while the negotiations themselves will determine the final border and, according to the American timetable, will be signed and sealed within two months.

“What if Israel doesn’t respond to Obama’s plan or only responds partially?,” Fishman asked a senior State Department official. The man replied, “What do you mean we won’t receive full answers? Where do you think you’re going from here?”

The American commentator Barry Rubin listed three substantive breaches of agreement by the Obama administration towards Israel:

* A breach of the agreement to recognize Israel’s right to maintain settlement blocks.

* A breach of the agreement for Israel to continue building in eastern Jerusalem, given in return for Israel’s acceding to the administration’s demand for a 10-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria.

* The intention to publicize an American peace plan that will be forced on the sides if negotiations can’t get started or fail.

The subject of the third breach completes the process of Israel’s loss of sovereignty. First by forcing Netanyahu to create in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria conditions under which the territory is de facto handed over to the Arabs, and then by giving him a few months to play at the farce of negotiations, with the predetermined result of arriving at the American “peace plan.”

And that’s not all. There’s the Quartet’s declared intent to base the forced “peace” on foreign armies. The Americans and Europeans are offering Israel the services of foreign troops as a beneficence in response to Israel’s complaint that it will no longer be able to defend itself within the borders of the Green Line. Their answer to this is “security guarantees” backed up with a military presence in the Jordan Valley and along the Green Line. They tell us that their intention is to defend us from the Arabs while they tell the Arabs that their intention is to defend them from us. In effect, this military presence will tie our hands and will prevent the Israeli government from taking any independent military action. From then on, Israel will be a sovereign nation in name only. In fact, Israel will
be a protectorate under international control, led by America.

Obama masterfully stage-directed the threat of a forced solution upon us. A meeting was called of past security advisors that all shared a common attribute: hostility to Israel. The chairman was General Jim Jones who served in Israel and became known as favoring a forced solution with foreign military backing. Obama named him as his National Security Advisor. The other participants were Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, and Samuel Berger, men with reputations as fierce opponents of Israel. Colin Powell ­ not a great friend but a bit more neutral ­ also participated. With Powell as the sole dissenter, they all reached the conclusion that America must adopt a policy of forcing a solution. The fact of the meeting as well as its conclusions were leaked by the White House to The New York Times and The Washington Post, who were also told that the President himself had dropped in to listen in on the discussion ­ this to let us know that it wasn’t just another discussion by another committee, but a working meeting sponsored by the President. In this discussion too, the participants agreed on the need to station American or NATO armed forces along the Jordan River.

Another figure in Obama’s circle is Samantha Power, who in 2002, answering the question of how she would advise the President about the Arab-Israeli conflict, replied that instead of giving Israel three billions dollars annually, the money should go towards building a
Palestinian state and to funding “a huge army” with substantial capabilities for “forced outside intervention”. Obama appointed this woman as an advisor, a fact that says it all.

The Arabs caught on to the new rules of the game before Netanyahu, and are acting like they don’t have to do a thing since the Americans are doing it all for them. We, the Israelis, don’t count, since we’re not considered as having any independent power of decision. Instead of talking to the puppet, the Arabs prefer to address the one who pulls the strings.

America has a rich past of coercive foreign interventions. She had a hand in the coup in Chile that overthrew and killed Salvador Allende, Chile’s democratically elected president. America orchestrated the revolt of “Solidarity” in Poland that overthrew the communist regime. She was involved in the overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in the Ukraine (since then, the Russians overturned things once again), and helped to overthrow Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in order to set up a pro-American government there. Her intervention in numerous Latin American countries coined the phrase “banana republic”.

The Americans call their hostile subversion of other countries’ governments “destabilization,” and the press is indeed reporting that the sources close to the prime minister fear that Obama intends to bring down Netanyahu’s government if he doesn’t accept American dictates. In economics, this is known as a hostile takeover.

The hostile Israeli press sides with Obama, of course. Orly Azoulay, Yediot Achronot’s Washington bureau chief, acts as a “court reporter” for Obama, as if she works for him and not for us. And Alex Fishman, quoted above, criticizes “the problematic behavior of the Prime Minister in Washington.” Obama puts Neyanyahu through a hazing in Washington, and instead of defending his prime minister and condemning the one who insulted him ­ and thereby insulted us, one of Israel’s prominent reporters throws mud on the “problematic behavior” of the victim. What was Netanyahu’s sin? That he didn’t immediately sign the decree of surrender?

Another example of the slavish and servile language of the Israeli press is the headline of Yediot Achronot from Sept. 17, 2009, which proclaims “The U.S.: Our Patience With Israel is Ending.” The paper’s editors composed this formulation, as if Israel were a stubborn child getting on the nerves of the teacher.

Israelis aren’t sufficiently cognizant of the threat of foreign military forces entering the country even though the writing has been on the wall for some time now. For example, as far back as October 2008, the newspaper A-Shark al-Aussat citing French sources reported that the European Union had offered to deploy a European “peace force” along a future Israeli-Palestinian border. The Jerusalem Post reported on November 26, 2008 about a recommendation by one of Obama’s most senior advisors to station American or NATO armed forces in the Jordan Valley. Brzezinski also spoke of an “American line” along the Jordan Valley.* Aaron Klein reported on January 12 about secret discussions in which the possibility of placing Jordanian forces in Judea and Samaria was weighed.

Another blow to Israeli sovereignty that Klein publicized (April 8, 2010), is the spy network that George Mitchell has established here. There is detailed American oversight in eastern Jerusalem and the highest echelons become involved in every tiny building or development project. Mitchell set up the operation from within the American consulate in Jerusalem that also oversees building in Judea and Samaria, including every tractor that moves in Ma’ale Adumim. David HaIvri, spokesman of the Samaria Local Council, also noted that the Americans patrol the settlements and stick their noses everywhere. According to HaIvri, they present themselves as advisors to the consul, “but we know that in fact they’re spies for the Obama administration.”

In truth, the deterioration leading to the loss of sovereignty, G-d forbid, started back in 2003, when Ariel Sharon’s government obligated itself to the Road Map. It is the Road Map that the Americans rely on when they accuse Israel of not fulfilling her obligations.

However, during the government vote on the Road Map, Netanyahu agreed to support it only on condition that 14 “reservations” were appended to it. The reservations included dismantling the terror
organizations, including Hamas, stopping the incitement, confiscating unauthorized arms, and an end to arms smuggling and arms manufacture.

These conditions, to say the least, haven’t been met ­ suffice it to mention that the Hamas state in Gaza, whose raison d’etre is to conduct a terror war against Israel until the Jewish State is destroyed, comprises almost half the Palestinian population.

Another reservation stated that as long as the Arabs fail to honor their commitments to put an end to terror and incitement, Israel is also absolved of her commitments (for example, to dismantle outposts and freeze building in the settlements).

Another reservation said that “final status issues, including the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the status of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, will not be dealt with.” In another reservation, Israel rejected “any reference to international or other decisions,” (referring to the Saudi-Arab Initiative).

In light of these reservations, Obama’s attack on Israel is groundless since the conditions that would obligate Israel to the Road Map haven’t been met at all. Since May 23, 2003, the date the government obligated itself to these reservations, we’ve heard nothing about them, as if they vanished into a black hole. At the time, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told us: you can decide among yourselves whatever you want, but just as no one consulted you when we formed the Quartet or formulated the Road Map, no one’s cares about your “reservations” now. Today, it appears that she was right: Israel’s reservations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. The Secretary of State’s position was indeed correct: the Road Map was a dictate and no one heard the Israeli poodle’s whimper of protest in the form of “reservations”.

Here, with the Road Map, was the beginning of our loss of independence: we subjugated ourselves to the Quartet, we agreed to be supervised and judged by their inspectors, we gave them the authority to convene international conventions with the power to declare Palestinian independence, and we accepted the principle that the Arabs have legitimate claims to Jerusalem and regarding the refugees — all under the umbrella of the Saudi Initiative. All this, in addition to the obligation to freeze settlements and destroy outposts.

We waged our first war of independence against the British and the Arab armies when we were very weak ­ we had a population of 650,000, which is the same as the population of Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem today. We had almost no arms, only a nascent army, and no economy — we were like a newborn baby, naked and vulnerable. Those conditions are incomparable with our situation now. And yet, despite our current strength and resources, if we aren’t now willing to undertake the risks and hardships entailed in a second war for our independence, we’re likely to loose everything we achieved in our first war of independence.

*On April 26th, Channel One’s Ehud Yaari interviewed Palestinian Authority head Abu Mazen on Israeli television. There, Abu Mazen asserted that he and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had reached an agreement that Israel’s security concerns would be safeguarded in a final peace accord by stationing NATO troops under American command along the future Israeli-Palestinian border.

INDIA will seek access to Israel’s expertise in areas such as bio-technology and water management as it begins discussions on a free trade agreement in Delhi next month, but the pact is likely to have strategic undertones as well. India already has many trade agreements with other countries, but this is the first Israel will be getting into, indicating the importance it gives to economic relations with India.

“India’s relationship with Israel is of a strategic nature as it is seeking, in various capacities, closer ties in the military area. The FTA would help in making the relationship more robust,” C Uday Bhaskar, strategic analyst and director of National Maritime Foundation said.

A pact with Israel will give India a foothold in the West Asia where it has not managed to make much progress so far, a commerce department official told ET.

Its only engagement in the region is a preferential trade agreement with Afghanistan, which includes just a handful of products. India’s proposed FTA with the Gulf Cooperation Council is stuck because of differences over tariffs on petroleum products. Prime Minster’s trade and economic relations committee has already cleared the proposed FTA with Israel despite some initial doubts raised by the ministry of external affairs because of the political sensitivities involved, the official said.

The FTA, proposed by Israel around four years ago, will cover goods, services as well as investment.

Israel’s tariffs are lower compared to India’s implying that the latter would have to take on steeper tariff reduction commitments. But the country is not apprehensive about a steep increase in imports as Israel’s manufacturing industry is much smaller in size. “One thing we are totally convinced of is that Israel is not going to economically swamp us with anything,” the official said.

India exported goods worth $189 billion in 2008-09 whereas Israel’s exports were only $65 billion, indicating the smaller manufacturing economy of the latter. India-Israel bilateral trade in 2008 was at $4 billion. The strategic consideration is also likely to weigh heavy in the decision. “India stands to gain from Israel’s capabilities in the high-tech area especially in dual-use technology,” Mr Bhaskar said.

The main gains for India is likely to be in the area of technology transfer and joint manufacturing. “Israel has cutting edge technology in areas such as bio-tech, nanotechnology, medical equipment, water management & drip-irrigation and solar energy, and we are bound to benefit from that,” the official said.

Other areas where India could gain is in services such as IT and telecom. “We will form various groups on different areas such as manufacturing, agriculture, investments and services in our first meeting next month and negotiations would start after that,” the official said.

As proximity talks near, Israeli officials wary of Abbas’s intentions.
Talkbacks (6)

While Israel and the Palestinian Authority are finally expected to begin US-mediated indirect “proximity” talks in the very near future, concern is growing among some in the Israeli government that the PA is planning to marginalize the diplomatic process and instead unilaterally seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 lines.

There is a rising conviction among some in the Netanyahu government, The Jerusalem Post has learned, that the PA is aiming to secure a new UN Security Council Resolution, updating 1967’s Resolution 242, providing for the establishment of Palestine and fudging the refugee issue.

The idea of such a move, runs the bleak assessment, would be to establish a state not at peace with Israel, but rather to continue the conflict with Israel.

Not all senior figures share this assessment, it is stressed, although it is very widely doubted within the coalition’s senior decision-making echelon that PA President Mahmoud Abbas is prepared to negotiate viable terms for peace with Israel.

By contrast, the US administration, in its contacts with Israel, is said to have conveyed the assessment that Abbas is ready for a negotiated peace, and President Shimon Peres is said to have made clear his belief that Abbas does not intend to seek to flood Israel with refugees under the demand for a “right of return.”

In an interview with Channel 2 this week, Abbas denied plans for a unilateral declaration of statehood or any other unilateral acts, and noted that the Arab League peace initiative provided for a “just and agreed” solution on the refugee issue – a solution, that is, that would have to be acceptable to Israel.

In February, the Post reported that a paper prepared by chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat on the status of the peace talks recommended that the Palestinians try to secure a UN Security Council resolution that recognized the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital, as well as a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with UN Resolution 194.

The Erekat paper, entitled “The Political Situation in Light of Developments with the US Administration and Israeli Government and Hamas’s Continued Coup D’etat,” recommended that the Palestinians consider the possibility of abandoning the two-state solution in favor of a one-state solution if the peace process did not move forward.

Within the Netanyahu government, the Post understands, there is a growing awareness of the rising level of international support for Palestinian statehood, and of the reduced international empathy for Israeli concerns and reservations.

Central to those trends, it is recognized, is the credibility of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who has impressed international figures, including many of the most firmly pro-Israel American political leaders, with his commitment to building credible institutions of statehood in the West Bank.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has essentially partnered the PA and Fayyad via his “economic peace” moves over the past year, dismantling roadblocks, reducing checkpoints and easing freedom of movement to help the PA toward an estimated 10-percent-plus growth in gross domestic product over the past 12 months. But some in the prime minister’s inner circle nonetheless have profound reservations about Fayyad’s strategy.

It is noted, for instance, that the “Program of the Thirteenth Government” issued by Fayyad last August, and entitled “Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,” contains no direct, unambiguous reference to making peace with Israel.

At the same time, it describes the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years as “not only possible,” but “essential.”

The fact that the PA refused to resume direct talks with Israel after Netanyahu took office last year, and sought to impose preconditions that contributed to the repeated postponement of even the indirect “proximity” talks, has reinforced the sense of many senior figures in the Netanyahu government that the PA is not urgently seeking progress via the negotiating process, and instead intends to take the UN route.

According to international law expert Ruth Lapidot, recognition of statehood is usually done by fellow states, but the Security Council could recommend that member states recognize a new state of Palestine. Lapidot said Thursday it was unclear if a veto power would apply in such a case; this would depend on the whether the issue were deemed to be of a procedural nature or a substantive nature.

In the case of Kosovo, Lapidot noted, the Security Council recommended establishing the state, but it did not impose that solution.

The council’s mandate says that it can solve disputes, but does not define the exact powers. To date, said Lapidot, the Security Council has not established the borders of any state. Still, she elaborated, in the case of Kuwait after the first Gulf War, it established an arbitration commission, which then set the borders of the state.

Regarding the issue of admittance to the UN, Lapidot said, the Palestinians would need the approval of both the Security Council and the General Assembly. For this kind of resolution, veto power would apply, she said.

On a related matter, meanwhile, it is understood that the prime minister and some of those closest to him firmly oppose the notion, reported in parts of the Hebrew media earlier this month, of negotiating with the Palestinians for a state with temporary borders – an idea that Abbas has also rejected.

Support for such an idea is said to come from more dovish elements in the coalition, who believe that once the Palestinians have a state of some kind, even if its borders are not finalized, the international tide of delegitimization of Israel will turn.

Figures closer to Netanyahu, however, note that even an agreement on a state with temporary borders would require Abbas to address such critical issues as demilitarization and Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

If Abbas were capable of taking viable positions on those issues, runs the argument, it would be far better to have him do so in the cause of a permanent rather than a temporary accord.

The President of the United States can be impeached and removed from office for a “high crime or misdemeanor” committed prior to or during his tenure. Internet gambling, specifically the “Dinner with Barack” promotions in which donors of $5 or more had a chance to win an expenses-paid trip to have dinner with Barack Obama, seems to qualify as a violation of U.S. Code Title 31 Subchapter IV, “Prohibition on funding of unlawful Internet gambling.”

The term “unlawful Internet gambling” means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

Furthermore, a bet or wager is defined in part as, “includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance),” which encompasses the “Dinner with Barack” and “Backstage with Barack” solicitations. As for illegality under any applicable state law, Minnesota law enforcement is on record as saying that these solicitations were illegal in Minnesota. Most states, in fact, require purveyors of lotteries and other games of chance to obtain a license which, as far as we know, the Obama campaign never bothered to do. Barack Obama’s personal involvement in these lotteries mean that he may be guilty personally of one or more “high crimes or misdemeanors,” a finding of guilt on any count by the U.S. Senate would require his removal from office. Even worse, Barack Obama signed his name to a letter that showed that one lottery was fraudulent because it selected a winner before the entry deadline; in other words, later entrants were cheated of an equal chance to win.

Here is a screenshot directly from the Obama campaign; we have downloaded the page in question and we recommend that our readers do as well. Pay close attention to

Every supporter who made a donation of $5 or more between July 26th and July 31st took part in our second Dinner with Barack campaign.
On Labor Day, September 3rd, four lucky supporters from all over the country will join Barack for an evening of good food and good conversation.

Dinner with Barack lottery

Note the three elements of what is legally defined as a lottery, i.e. gambling.

(1) Mandatory payment of consideration to participate: “Every supporter who made a donation of $5 or more between July 26th and July 31st took part in our second Dinner with Barack campaign.” If it is possible to enter without payment, and subsequent promotions were modified to allow this only because of complaints and warnings from law enforcement agencies, the activity is not a lottery.

(2) Element of chance: “On Labor Day, September 3rd, four lucky supporters from all over the country”

(3) A prize: “will join Barack for an evening of good food and good conversation.”

Barack Obama’s personal participation in these solicitations, if they were in fact illegal, makes him guilty of “high crimes or misdemeanors” for which he can be impeached and removed from office. In addition, the issue goes beyond illegal Internet gambling to outright cheating and fraud as shown by the following E-mail.

From – Tue Jul 31 12:25:01 2007
X-UIDL: 8498-1156627068
X-Mozilla-Status: 1001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Received: from mta-inap3.bluestatedigital.com ([70.42.50.185])
by vms169131.mailsrvcs.net
(Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006))
with ESMTP id for
[our home E-mail address]; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:50:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mta-inap3.bluestatedigital.com (Postfix, from userid 501)
id 4B67A4EDCB3; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:50:13 -0400
From: Barack Obama
Subject: Dinner invitation
X-Originating-IP: [70.42.50.185]
To: Bill Levinson
Reply-to: info@barackobama.com
Message-id:
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: PHPMailer [version 1.72-blue_mailer]
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=b1_6410a68c11e0cea969d3dd947ed112f6
X-Priority: 3
X-maillist-id: 4v-kVvgUkok
X-maillist-guid: CgdXWAJtUkJIWGZDVjBYDggw

–b1_6410a68c11e0cea969d3dd947ed112f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset = “iso-8859-1″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Make a donation by 11:59 pm tonight, Tuesday, July 31st, and you
could join us for our second Dinner with Barack:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinner

Dear Bill,

A couple of weeks ago I sat down to dinner with four supporters like
you.

Christina, Haile, Margaret, and Michael each made a small online
donation, and we flew them across the country for some good food and
good conversation.

What I enjoyed most about this dinner was the opportunity to listen
to the stories and concerns of ordinary Americans in a relaxed
environment. Out on the campaign trail, there isn’t always time for
that kind of interaction.

Last week we started planning our second dinner, and on Friday
evening at 6:42 pm, a woman named Dorothy Unruh of Lakewood,
Colorado made a donation.

I’m pleased to announce that Dorothy will be one of my guests for
the second dinner. You could join us if you make a small
donation before 11:59 pm tonight, July 31st:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinner

Here’s what Dorothy told us about herself:

“I’m a senior citizen fed up with the current state of our
government. I’m sad that our great nation has lost its stature in
the eyes of the rest of the world. I have been a registered
Republican for years, but recently officially changed parties so I
can attend the Democratic caucus and help elect Senator Obama. He is
like a breath of fresh air to my husband and me.”

Dorothy has never taken part in a political campaign before, but she
and millions of other voters who want change are going to be the key
to Democratic victories up and down the ballot next year.

I’m looking forward to having dinner with Dorothy, but there are
still three seats left at the table. Will you be in one of them?

If you make a donation by 11:59 pm tonight, Tuesday, July 31st, you
could join us for dinner very soon:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinner

We’ll pay for your trip and the meal — all you need to bring is
your story and your ideas about how to make this a better country
for all Americans.

Small donations from ordinary Americans have set our campaign apart
and allowed us to reject the influence of Washington lobbyists and
special interest groups. Not only is your support the key to our
success, it’s essential to reclaiming a government that is of the
people, by the people, and for the people.

I hope you will make a donation now and participate in this
opportunity. Take ownership of your part in this
campaign and strengthen your role in our movement.

Together we can put an end to pay-for-influence politics. We can
turn the page in Washington, and it all begins with you.

Thank you for your support.

Barack Obama

————————————————————————
Paid for by Obama for America
This email was sent to: [our home E-mail address]
To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe

Note again all the elements of a lottery, i.e. gambling.
(1) Mandatory payment of consideration: “If you make a donation by 11:59 pm tonight, Tuesday, July 31st,”
(2) Element of chance: “you could join us for dinner very soon:”
(3) A prize: “We’ll pay for your trip and the meal”

Furthermore:
(1) Barack Obama signed his name to this lottery solicitation, thus making him a direct party to a crime if one was in fact committed under U.S. Code Title 31.
(2) He announced that Dorothy Unruh was selected as a winner prior to the entry deadline, thus reducing the chances of those who entered after 6:32 P.M. by one-quarter. In other words, the “house” (Obama campaign) effectively drew at least one winning lottery ticket from the pool before everybody had entered. Those who entered after 6:32 had a 3 out of N (N=total entrants) chance to win instead of a 4 out of N1 (entrants prior to 6:32) chance. Barack Obama said so himself: “I’m looking forward to having dinner with Dorothy, but there are still three seats left at the table.” This sounds a lot like cheating or some other kind of fundraising fraud at the expense of the people who entered after 6:32.

This is not the only such lottery that was sponsored by the Obama campaign.

Backstage with Barack

Dinner with Barack lottery

Any member of Congress can end Barack Obama’s Presidency by calling for his impeachment on the grounds of U.S. Code Title 31 5362, “Unlawful Internet Gambling.” Once it is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama participated personally in illegal Internet gambling to fund his campaign, his position will be absolutely untenable and even his fellow Democrats won’t dare to oppose impeachment. This is because we cannot have one U.S. Code Title 31 for the President and another for everybody else, at least not if Federal law enforcement agencies want public support and respect for their efforts to suppress illegal Internet gambling. Recall that Richard Nixon had to resign to avoid removal from office because even his own party could not have afforded to defend him in light of the Watergate scandal. In this case, the evidence is stronger even than for Watergate because it comes directly from the Obama campaign and Obama himself.

A Short Analysis of the Likud Central Committee Voting

The official results of the voting today indicate that 77% of the Likud Central Committee voters went with Bibi, preferring to defer Likud elections – probably indefinitely. There were many obvious problems and irregularities with today’s voting, but it will not help us to turn to the courts or to be “sore losers.” And this dark cloud definitely has a silver lining.

[I don't see the bright side at all.]

After a long and hectic week, we can summarize that Moshe Feiglin and Manhigut Yehudit took a giant leap forward toward leadership of Israel. Moshe Feiglin was in the media constantly. Even those journalists who have traditionally been openly hostile to Moshe related to him with seriousness and respect. There is no doubt that Moshe has positioned himself as an alternative leader for Israel.

There was only one major force this week that opposed Bibi and his planned disengagement from Jerusalem: Moshe Feiglin. He was articulate, determined and unequivocal as he warned of Bibi’s plans – very much the next leader in the making.

The following is a summary of the remarks that Moshe Feiglin made tonight at the press conference that he held in Jerusalem:

I call upon all the faith based camp to register for the Likud. Very soon – sooner than one may think – we will be facing elections once again. Next time, we must win. We cannot afford another national camp prime minister who gets elected with the votes of the Right and then executes the policies of the Left.

The faith based camp is beginning to realize that there is no reason for sectorial parties. This understanding is no longer exclusive to Manhigut Yehudit. It is the logical conclusion of ever-growing numbers in the national camp. This new level of understanding will be the catalyst that will bring about faith based leadership for Israel.

Today I realized that there is a large group of Likud Central Committee members whom I did not convince. How do I explain that? Anderson, in the “Emperor’s New Clothes” explained it well. When the emperor has no clothes but everyone says that he is beautifully garbed, the average person wants to believe it. If Bibi says he’s guarding Jerusalem, people prefer to believe him.

Today we saw two phenomena: One, that Netanyahu is not worried about the National Union, Jewish Home, Lieberman et al. All that matters to him is what is happening in his party. Without Manhigut Yehudit, nothing would be in his way. We did not succeed, but we put up a good fight. Our conclusion is to remain in this arena.

The second thing that we clearly see is that the cards are unfairly stacked against us: No judges, no observers, no rules and all the irregularities that we witnessed today. It seems like a contradiction; we are in the correct arena, but our hands are tied. But reality will continue to reduce the influence of the mechanism that stifles our progress. Even the Soviet Union fell when people stopped giving legitimacy to the government.

I am not worried that Bibi will flood the Likud with non-ideological voters – worker’s unions and the like, who will do his bidding. I am sure that there will be a massive ideological registration to the Likud that will more than balance Bibi’s straw voters. It is specifically for that reason that we have to continue to register our people for the Likud.

We are certain that Bibi coordinated his plan with the High Court. The current Likud Central Committee is already in power over twice as long as it should be. The High Court didn’t even relate to that fact. It will continue to handle Bibi with kid gloves as long as he continues to surrender Jerusalem.

I want to thank all of our wonderful activists and volunteers, who selflessly worked around the clock. We may have lost this battle, but with G-d’s help, I have no doubt that we will win the war and establish true Jewish leadership for Israel.

U.S. soldiers who liberated a Nazi concentration camp in April 1945 were amazed to discover, among the countless famished and dead, seven Jewish mothers and their babies, who had somehow avoided execution or starvation.

This week, six of those former babies are to gather for an emotional reunion at Dachau on the outskirts of Munich.

German television is to air a television documentary which explores the miracle of how these three infant boys and four infant girls slipped through the cracks of the Nazi killing machine.

George, Jossi, Leslie, Marika, Agnes, Judit and Szuzi spent the first months of their lives in Kaufering I, a camp 50 kilometres west of Munich.

Marika Novakova, 65, never understood when she was growing up in the Slovakian small town of Dunajska Streda why her birth certificate said she had been born in Kaufering, a village in Bavaria. It did not make sense, but her mother refused to explain why.

A couple of documentary makers employed by German broadcaster WDR, Eva Gruberova and Martina Gawaz, asked the mother for an interview, but Eva Fleischmanova refused. Finally she re-considered. As the cameras filmed, she unveiled her past.

Fleischmanova describes the horrors of the war, how she was nearly gassed at Auschwitz and ended up in Kaufering. She tells of her daughter’s birth in captivity, and how she kept her personal Holocaust story secret because of anti-Semitism in Slovakia.

Miriam Rosenthal, 87, can barely bring herself to speak in some sections of the documentary. Holding her son Leslie, she can be seen with Fleischmanova in the extraordinary, 65-year-old, black-and-white photo of the young mothers between bunks in a dormitory.

The two woman documentary makers began their research using that photo.

Miriam Rosenthal’s description of the war years on camera is the first time she spoke German again after leaving Germany for Canada.

She and her husband, also a Holocaust survivor, built a new life
for Leslie and themselves in Toronto.

The horrors of the past still loom over Miriam, who often breaks
into tears as she speaks.

“As a girl, I imagined I had been born in a forest,” says Marika Novakova. “All my mother would tell me was that people were treated very cruelly there. I did not know what sort of place it was at all.”

The documentary makers take Marika on a journey to the way-stations of her mother’s ordeal: to the fence at Auschwitz, to the German city of Augsburg where the women were used as slave labour in a arms factory, and to Kaufering I.

Dachau concentration camp had several satellite camps like Kaufering where slave labour was kept close to factories.

Marika’s mother was twice inspected by Josef Mengele, the doctor of death at Auschwitz, as he selected those to be killed and those to be kept for labor. He pinched her breast to see if milk came out.

Eva Fleischmanova somehow managed to hold in her belly so that he did not notice she was pregnant.

Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, was determined to exterminate all Jewish children. His policy was set out in the secret speech he
gave at Poznan, Poland on October 6, 1943.

“I do not consider it justifiable to exterminate the men, meaning to kill them or get them to be killed, while allowing the revengers, in the form of children, to grow up and face our sons and grandsons,” said Himmler.

The Nazis deliberately killed children: the toll of minors in the Holocaust is estimated at as much as 1.5 million.

Miriam Rosenthal also remembers the moment when she narrowly escaped being put to death.

“An SS man came round with a loudspeaker and he was shouting, ‘All the women come outside. You’ve been given a double ration of bread.’”

Most of the women obeyed, but Rosenthal stayed indoors. A voice inside told her to stop. “All those women ended up in the crematorium,” she said.

Rosenthal was shipped from Auschwitz to Kaufering at the age of 22.

The young mothers survived in Kaufering thanks to the solidarity of other women prisoners, who cared for the newborns when the mothers were summoned to work. Fellow prisoners hid the babies and gave them water and food.

The seven mothers and their babies scattered after the Second World War. It was Rosenthal who re-opened a connection by sending a copy of the black-and-white photo to her former fellow inmate Fleischmanova.

The daughter Marika saw the picture and resolved to fly to Canada to meet Rosenthal to hear the story of her first weeks of life.

“I would never have dreamed I would see little Marika again,” Rosenthal said.

Six of the seven former concentration camp babies are to attend the reunion – their first – at Dachau this Thursday for the opening of a special exhibition on the fate of mothers in the Dachau camps. Germany’s ARD television is to air the documentary Wednesday

The believed or do believe in the foreign policy of “I win, you lose”.

Daniel Pipes explains his view in Canada’s National Post.