You’d have to figure, as I do, that God has an arch sense of humor to appreciate why the first foreign leader scheduled to visit Jerusalem and Ramallah in the wake of Hamas’s electoral victory is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Personally, I’d advise Merkel to eschew Ramallah altogether – too many bad-tempered gunmen running around. But it is reassuring to know that, if she does go, she will limit herself to meeting PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his dwindling Fatah coterie. The chancellor is championing the European Union’s stance, which precludes negotiating with the soon-to-be-installed Islamic Resistance Movement government.
To break the boycott, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana says Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist. French President Jacques Chirac pledges his country won’t talk to Hamas until it issues a public renunciation of violence, recognizes Israel’s right to live in peace, and commits itself to the agreements the PA has already signed. And Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government tells Hamas it has to “decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence.”
SO, ON the face of it, we have a principled Europe saying all the right things. But Germany, Britain and France – the Europe that matters most – will be faced with an enormous temptation to allow realpolitik to guide their relations with Hamas.
Some in Europe will move to sanitize Hamas. A non-violent “political” wing will be discovered. And the Islamists will facilitate matters by keeping Abbas around as president and appointing someone like former PA finance minister Salam Fayyad as a figurehead premier. This would allow Europe to maintain support for the PA while nominally refusing to deal directly with Hamas.
Europeans could tell themselves that Hamas’s capture of 74 seats to Fatah’s 45 was a yes for “Change and Reform,” not suicide bombings. And they’re getting the ammunition to do it.
In Newsweek Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki argues that “Hamas received only 45 percent of the popular vote.” It was a vote, claims Shikaki, against Fatah corruption. And anyway, exit polls showed “three-quarters of all Palestinians, including more than 60 percent of Hamas supporters,” favoring a two-state solution.
So there you have it: Why should a majority of Palestinians be penalized for the actions of a minority?
You can just hear the Europeans – who are the PA’s biggest donors – flagellating themselves: What about the PA’s $69 million budget deficit this month alone; or its anticipated $600m. deficit for 2006? At last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, James Wolfensohn, the Quartet’s special envoy, warned that “The Palestinians are basically bankrupt.”
And PA Minister of Economy Mazen Sinokrot, also at Davos, whinged, “We have to pay salaries. Where will this money come from?” Sinokrot went on to note that the PA’s 135,000 employees, including 58,000 gunmen, were the “breadwinners” for 30 percent of Palestinian families. “If these salaries do not come in, this is a message for violence.” Hint, hint.
Most of the PA’s “revenues” – something in the neighborhood of $1 billion – go to what is euphemistically called salaries. And, anyway, the Europeans may persuade themselves, if we don’t do it, the Hamas-led PA will turn to Iran and Saudi Arabia – and then where would EU taxpayers be?
Richer, I suppose.
ENTER ANGELA Merkel, who arrived yesterday for a 24-hour visit. In a world where nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests, the German-Israel connection is unique.
Germany’s Overseas Development Minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said Germany would carefully watch Hamas’s behavior: “That is what will decide whether we continue our aid for the people in the Palestinian territories.” But Merkel’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, seemed to want it both ways, telling Der Spiegel that Berlin “accepted” the outcome of the Palestinians’ free elections, but adding that “Hamas must give up violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Terrorism and democracy do not match.”
Then he hedged his bets. “Votes for Hamas were not votes against peace or for a religious or ideological radicalization, but for reforms in Palestine. We must respect this wish.”
The German press is also hedging. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commented: “The way the West, Europeans and Americans respond to this development will be an important factor in determining how seriously Muslims take the demands for democratization....”
And Andrea Nüsse, writing in yesterday’s Tagesspiegel, opined that maybe “the pragmatic wing” of Hamas would become ascendant. The Die Linke Party, mostly former East German communists, advocated a softer approach, arguing that weakening the PA would only worsen the situation.
Berlin-based journalist Daniel Dagan reminded me that Merkel arrived here on the heels of last Friday’s official commemoration marking 61 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. There is no way around it: There will always be a special poignancy when a German leader visits Yad Vashem, which Merkel is scheduled to do this morning.
For Dagan, a keen observer of German-Israel relations, Merkel’s visit is a welcome signal after five years in which the previous chancellor demonstratively avoided coming to Jerusalem.
A German friend, Anna Held, who works at Berlin’s Goethe Institute, told me the reaction to the Islamist win among German opinion-makers was one of shock. “Everyone here opposes dealing with Hamas until it acknowledges Israel’s right to exist,” she said. “But opinions vary as to how to achieve that end.”
BERLIN DOES not usually like to take the lead in European foreign policy. It prefers to help shape an EU consensus. But there is no escaping the pivotal role Germany must now play. With Israel threatened by the prospect of an implacable, nuclear-armed Teheran on the one hand, and a uncompromising Islamist regime in Ramallah on the other, Israelis turn not to London or Paris but, paradoxically, to Berlin.
Merkel became chancellor last November and, to everyone’s surprise, has become remarkably popular. In her first speech to the Bundestag she proclaimed: “Dialogue with Islam carries great significance – we have to learn to understand each other. We will do this in an open and honest way. We will not brush aside differences, but name them clearly.”
It was Merkel who first accused Iran of having crossed a “red line” in its genocidal talk against Israel.
Today, in London the EU, Russia, the United Nations and the United States are scheduled to meet to coordinate European policy toward Hamas (a separate meeting, also today, grapples with Iran’s nuclear program).
What, realistically, can Israelis expect from Merkel? The answer: to help craft a European policy that exploits what is, among other things, an extraordinary opportunity.
Merkel’s no-nonsense leadership is especially needed to ensure that the EU’s enunciated criteria for dealing with Hamas does not get watered down.
Europe must insists that Hamas explicitly recognize the right of a sovereign Jewish state to exist in peace. If Hamas says that it can’t or won’t, Europe must diplomatically and financially isolate the PA’s Islamist leadership.
The one thing that should not happen is for Europe to allow Hamas to proclaim a truce while facilitating the “bad terrorists” of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad to continue “resistance operations.” We already went down that road with Yasser Arafat.
The new PA must do what the old PA didn’t: live up to its road map commitments.
Perhaps fate intended for the straight-talking Merkel to be on the scene ensuring that neither her EU allies nor Hamas proclaim one policy while adhering to another.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Angela Merkel in Jerusalem – The EU says it won’t deal with Hamas. Germany must make sure it really doesn’t
I am an Israel briefer and analyst, a political scientist, and a speaker on Jewish civilization. I'm also a rewrite guy & fact-checker, who can make your writing clear and compelling & help you contextualize.
Angela Merkel in Jerusalem
THE EU SAYS IT WON’T DEAL WITH HAMAS.
GERMANY MUST MAKE SURE IT REALLY DOESN’T
You’d have to figure, as I do, that God has an arch sense of humor to appreciate why the first foreign leader scheduled to visit Jerusalem and Ramallah in the wake of Hamas’s electoral victory is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Personally, I’d advise Merkel to eschew Ramallah altogether – too many bad-tempered gunmen running around. But it is reassuring to know that, if she does go, she will limit herself to meeting PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his dwindling Fatah coterie. The chancellor is championing the European Union’s stance, which precludes negotiating with the soon-to-be-installed Islamic Resistance Movement government.
To break the boycott, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana says Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist. French President Jacques Chirac pledges his country won’t talk to Hamas until it issues a public renunciation of violence, recognizes Israel’s right to live in peace, and commits itself to the agreements the PA has already signed. And Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government tells Hamas it has to “decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence.”
SO, ON the face of it, we have a principled Europe saying all the right things. But Germany, Britain and France – the Europe that matters most – will be faced with an enormous temptation to allow realpolitik to guide their relations with Hamas.
Some in Europe will move to sanitize Hamas. A non-violent “political” wing will be discovered. And the Islamists will facilitate matters by keeping Abbas around as president and appointing someone like former PA finance minister Salam Fayyad as a figurehead premier. This would allow Europe to maintain support for the PA while nominally refusing to deal directly with Hamas.
Europeans could tell themselves that Hamas’s capture of 74 seats to Fatah’s 45 was a yes for “Change and Reform,” not suicide bombings. And they’re getting the ammunition to do it.
In Newsweek Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki argues that “Hamas received only 45 percent of the popular vote.” It was a vote, claims Shikaki, against Fatah corruption. And anyway, exit polls showed “three-quarters of all Palestinians, including more than 60 percent of Hamas supporters,” favoring a two-state solution.
So there you have it: Why should a majority of Palestinians be penalized for the actions of a minority?
You can just hear the Europeans – who are the PA’s biggest donors – flagellating themselves: What about the PA’s $69 million budget deficit this month alone; or its anticipated $600m. deficit for 2006? At last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, James Wolfensohn, the Quartet’s special envoy, warned that “The Palestinians are basically bankrupt.”
And PA Minister of Economy Mazen Sinokrot, also at Davos, whinged, “We have to pay salaries. Where will this money come from?” Sinokrot went on to note that the PA’s 135,000 employees, including 58,000 gunmen, were the “breadwinners” for 30 percent of Palestinian families. “If these salaries do not come in, this is a message for violence.” Hint, hint.
Most of the PA’s “revenues” – something in the neighborhood of $1 billion – go to what is euphemistically called salaries. And, anyway, the Europeans may persuade themselves, if we don’t do it, the Hamas-led PA will turn to Iran and Saudi Arabia – and then where would EU taxpayers be?
Richer, I suppose.
ENTER ANGELA Merkel, who arrived yesterday for a 24-hour visit. In a world where nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests, the German-Israel connection is unique.
Germany’s Overseas Development Minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said Germany would carefully watch Hamas’s behavior: “That is what will decide whether we continue our aid for the people in the Palestinian territories.” But Merkel’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, seemed to want it both ways, telling Der Spiegel that Berlin “accepted” the outcome of the Palestinians’ free elections, but adding that “Hamas must give up violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Terrorism and democracy do not match.”
Then he hedged his bets. “Votes for Hamas were not votes against peace or for a religious or ideological radicalization, but for reforms in Palestine. We must respect this wish.”
The German press is also hedging. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commented: “The way the West, Europeans and Americans respond to this development will be an important factor in determining how seriously Muslims take the demands for democratization....”
And Andrea Nüsse, writing in yesterday’s Tagesspiegel, opined that maybe “the pragmatic wing” of Hamas would become ascendant. The Die Linke Party, mostly former East German communists, advocated a softer approach, arguing that weakening the PA would only worsen the situation.
Berlin-based journalist Daniel Dagan reminded me that Merkel arrived here on the heels of last Friday’s official commemoration marking 61 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. There is no way around it: There will always be a special poignancy when a German leader visits Yad Vashem, which Merkel is scheduled to do this morning.
For Dagan, a keen observer of German-Israel relations, Merkel’s visit is a welcome signal after five years in which the previous chancellor demonstratively avoided coming to Jerusalem.
A German friend, Anna Held, who works at Berlin’s Goethe Institute, told me the reaction to the Islamist win among German opinion-makers was one of shock. “Everyone here opposes dealing with Hamas until it acknowledges Israel’s right to exist,” she said. “But opinions vary as to how to achieve that end.”
BERLIN DOES not usually like to take the lead in European foreign policy. It prefers to help shape an EU consensus. But there is no escaping the pivotal role Germany must now play. With Israel threatened by the prospect of an implacable, nuclear-armed Teheran on the one hand, and a uncompromising Islamist regime in Ramallah on the other, Israelis turn not to London or Paris but, paradoxically, to Berlin.
Merkel became chancellor last November and, to everyone’s surprise, has become remarkably popular. In her first speech to the Bundestag she proclaimed: “Dialogue with Islam carries great significance – we have to learn to understand each other. We will do this in an open and honest way. We will not brush aside differences, but name them clearly.”
It was Merkel who first accused Iran of having crossed a “red line” in its genocidal talk against Israel.
Today, in London the EU, Russia, the United Nations and the United States are scheduled to meet to coordinate European policy toward Hamas (a separate meeting, also today, grapples with Iran’s nuclear program).
What, realistically, can Israelis expect from Merkel? The answer: to help craft a European policy that exploits what is, among other things, an extraordinary opportunity.
Merkel’s no-nonsense leadership is especially needed to ensure that the EU’s enunciated criteria for dealing with Hamas does not get watered down.
Europe must insists that Hamas explicitly recognize the right of a sovereign Jewish state to exist in peace. If Hamas says that it can’t or won’t, Europe must diplomatically and financially isolate the PA’s Islamist leadership.
The one thing that should not happen is for Europe to allow Hamas to proclaim a truce while facilitating the “bad terrorists” of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad to continue “resistance operations.” We already went down that road with Yasser Arafat.
The new PA must do what the old PA didn’t: live up to its road map commitments.
Perhaps fate intended for the straight-talking Merkel to be on the scene ensuring that neither her EU allies nor Hamas proclaim one policy while adhering to another.
GERMANY MUST MAKE SURE IT REALLY DOESN’T
You’d have to figure, as I do, that God has an arch sense of humor to appreciate why the first foreign leader scheduled to visit Jerusalem and Ramallah in the wake of Hamas’s electoral victory is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Personally, I’d advise Merkel to eschew Ramallah altogether – too many bad-tempered gunmen running around. But it is reassuring to know that, if she does go, she will limit herself to meeting PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his dwindling Fatah coterie. The chancellor is championing the European Union’s stance, which precludes negotiating with the soon-to-be-installed Islamic Resistance Movement government.
To break the boycott, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana says Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist. French President Jacques Chirac pledges his country won’t talk to Hamas until it issues a public renunciation of violence, recognizes Israel’s right to live in peace, and commits itself to the agreements the PA has already signed. And Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government tells Hamas it has to “decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence.”
SO, ON the face of it, we have a principled Europe saying all the right things. But Germany, Britain and France – the Europe that matters most – will be faced with an enormous temptation to allow realpolitik to guide their relations with Hamas.
Some in Europe will move to sanitize Hamas. A non-violent “political” wing will be discovered. And the Islamists will facilitate matters by keeping Abbas around as president and appointing someone like former PA finance minister Salam Fayyad as a figurehead premier. This would allow Europe to maintain support for the PA while nominally refusing to deal directly with Hamas.
Europeans could tell themselves that Hamas’s capture of 74 seats to Fatah’s 45 was a yes for “Change and Reform,” not suicide bombings. And they’re getting the ammunition to do it.
In Newsweek Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki argues that “Hamas received only 45 percent of the popular vote.” It was a vote, claims Shikaki, against Fatah corruption. And anyway, exit polls showed “three-quarters of all Palestinians, including more than 60 percent of Hamas supporters,” favoring a two-state solution.
So there you have it: Why should a majority of Palestinians be penalized for the actions of a minority?
You can just hear the Europeans – who are the PA’s biggest donors – flagellating themselves: What about the PA’s $69 million budget deficit this month alone; or its anticipated $600m. deficit for 2006? At last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, James Wolfensohn, the Quartet’s special envoy, warned that “The Palestinians are basically bankrupt.”
And PA Minister of Economy Mazen Sinokrot, also at Davos, whinged, “We have to pay salaries. Where will this money come from?” Sinokrot went on to note that the PA’s 135,000 employees, including 58,000 gunmen, were the “breadwinners” for 30 percent of Palestinian families. “If these salaries do not come in, this is a message for violence.” Hint, hint.
Most of the PA’s “revenues” – something in the neighborhood of $1 billion – go to what is euphemistically called salaries. And, anyway, the Europeans may persuade themselves, if we don’t do it, the Hamas-led PA will turn to Iran and Saudi Arabia – and then where would EU taxpayers be?
Richer, I suppose.
ENTER ANGELA Merkel, who arrived yesterday for a 24-hour visit. In a world where nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests, the German-Israel connection is unique.
Germany’s Overseas Development Minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said Germany would carefully watch Hamas’s behavior: “That is what will decide whether we continue our aid for the people in the Palestinian territories.” But Merkel’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, seemed to want it both ways, telling Der Spiegel that Berlin “accepted” the outcome of the Palestinians’ free elections, but adding that “Hamas must give up violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Terrorism and democracy do not match.”
Then he hedged his bets. “Votes for Hamas were not votes against peace or for a religious or ideological radicalization, but for reforms in Palestine. We must respect this wish.”
The German press is also hedging. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commented: “The way the West, Europeans and Americans respond to this development will be an important factor in determining how seriously Muslims take the demands for democratization....”
And Andrea Nüsse, writing in yesterday’s Tagesspiegel, opined that maybe “the pragmatic wing” of Hamas would become ascendant. The Die Linke Party, mostly former East German communists, advocated a softer approach, arguing that weakening the PA would only worsen the situation.
Berlin-based journalist Daniel Dagan reminded me that Merkel arrived here on the heels of last Friday’s official commemoration marking 61 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. There is no way around it: There will always be a special poignancy when a German leader visits Yad Vashem, which Merkel is scheduled to do this morning.
For Dagan, a keen observer of German-Israel relations, Merkel’s visit is a welcome signal after five years in which the previous chancellor demonstratively avoided coming to Jerusalem.
A German friend, Anna Held, who works at Berlin’s Goethe Institute, told me the reaction to the Islamist win among German opinion-makers was one of shock. “Everyone here opposes dealing with Hamas until it acknowledges Israel’s right to exist,” she said. “But opinions vary as to how to achieve that end.”
BERLIN DOES not usually like to take the lead in European foreign policy. It prefers to help shape an EU consensus. But there is no escaping the pivotal role Germany must now play. With Israel threatened by the prospect of an implacable, nuclear-armed Teheran on the one hand, and a uncompromising Islamist regime in Ramallah on the other, Israelis turn not to London or Paris but, paradoxically, to Berlin.
Merkel became chancellor last November and, to everyone’s surprise, has become remarkably popular. In her first speech to the Bundestag she proclaimed: “Dialogue with Islam carries great significance – we have to learn to understand each other. We will do this in an open and honest way. We will not brush aside differences, but name them clearly.”
It was Merkel who first accused Iran of having crossed a “red line” in its genocidal talk against Israel.
Today, in London the EU, Russia, the United Nations and the United States are scheduled to meet to coordinate European policy toward Hamas (a separate meeting, also today, grapples with Iran’s nuclear program).
What, realistically, can Israelis expect from Merkel? The answer: to help craft a European policy that exploits what is, among other things, an extraordinary opportunity.
Merkel’s no-nonsense leadership is especially needed to ensure that the EU’s enunciated criteria for dealing with Hamas does not get watered down.
Europe must insists that Hamas explicitly recognize the right of a sovereign Jewish state to exist in peace. If Hamas says that it can’t or won’t, Europe must diplomatically and financially isolate the PA’s Islamist leadership.
The one thing that should not happen is for Europe to allow Hamas to proclaim a truce while facilitating the “bad terrorists” of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad to continue “resistance operations.” We already went down that road with Yasser Arafat.
The new PA must do what the old PA didn’t: live up to its road map commitments.
Perhaps fate intended for the straight-talking Merkel to be on the scene ensuring that neither her EU allies nor Hamas proclaim one policy while adhering to another.
I am an Israel briefer and analyst, a political scientist, and a speaker on Jewish civilization. I'm also a rewrite guy & fact-checker, who can make your writing clear and compelling & help you contextualize.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Wrong Podium
‘A speech,” Ronald Reagan’s wordsmith Peggy Noonan wrote, “is poetry: cadence, rhythm, imagery, sweep!”
If so, don’t Israelis deserve to get their history-making speeches from the Knesset’s podium? Should not parliament be where a prime minister announces major policy shifts and where opposition leaders argue that the premier’s approach is wrongheaded?
These questions come to mind as the Sixth Annual Herzliya Conference gets under way, sponsored by the Institute for Policy Strategy of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.
The conference has become Israel’s own version of high-powered “retreats” such as the Aspen Institute conclave, where America’s elites gather, and the World Economic Forum assemblage at Davos, which brings together top-ranking international movers and shakers.
And that it is a draw for distinguished domestic and international policy makers, top-tier business leaders, illustrious academics and superb journalists is plainly a good thing. In the course of three days at this seaside resort, bankers, Diaspora leaders, military strategists, Knesset members, settlement activists, former ambassadors, Nobel Prize winners and cabinet members will have shared their thoughts on “The Balance of Israel’s National Security.”
The Herzliya Conference is by no means the only prominent gathering of its kind. Various big-league meetings over the year address crucial issues ranging from poverty, social welfare and Negev development to minority rights and easing religious tensions.
It has become a reality of Israeli political life that no less attention is paid to speeches made at such conferences than to those from the Knesset podium. And so, knowing his remarks would carry added weight, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz used his appearance at Herzliya on Saturday night to warn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “I suggest you take a look... and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people... they brought destruction to their own people.”
The Iranian-born Mofaz concluded: “I know the people of Iran and they should know that Ahmadinejad’s policies will bring disaster upon them.”
Yet – wouldn’t such a warning send an even sharper message delivered during a specially-called Knesset session?
Opposition leaders also use the Herzliya setting to make their case to the electorate, and the world. For instance, during his dinner speech last night, Likud Party Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said the security fence should be moved deeper into the West Bank.
Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz is expected to use his speech tonight to clarify his party’s position on Jerusalem.
But it’s Tuesday evening’s anticipated appearance by Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – coming on the eve of Palestinian elections – that is expected to garner the most attention.
Olmert, reportedly, will not advocate additional unilateral West Bank withdrawals.
Instead he will demand that the Palestinian Authority comply with its road map obligations requiring it to disband armed militias and dismantle the infrastructure that facilitates terrorism. Such a crackdown, it is understood, would be Kadima’s demand before reopening negotiations with the newly-elected Palestinian leadership.
In an ideal world, a head of government should use parliament – and not an academic conference – to unveil his policies and reveal, for example, Israel’s stance on a post-election role for Hamas and under what circumstances unilateralism would again become a policy option.
It was at the December 2003 Herzliya Conference, though, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon first announced: “If within a few months the Palestinians have not made reciprocal steps, we will take unilateral action.”
And it was at the Caesarea Conference in June 2005 that former finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu promised not to resign because of his opposition to disengagement.
Our problem is not that Israel’s top echelon flocks to Herzliya once a year. What we find disconcerting is the rarity with which the country’s leadership engages and attempts to persuade its citizens regarding the wisdom of its policies.
What’s needed is a change of mind-set. We would like to see Israel’s next prime minister – and opposition leader – making a point of using the Knesset (and regular, formal news conferences) to lay out their policies.
Effective leadership demands more than an annual Big Speech, no matter how effective the setting – or the cadence, rhythm, and imagery.
– Jerusalem Post Editorial, January 23, 2005
If so, don’t Israelis deserve to get their history-making speeches from the Knesset’s podium? Should not parliament be where a prime minister announces major policy shifts and where opposition leaders argue that the premier’s approach is wrongheaded?
These questions come to mind as the Sixth Annual Herzliya Conference gets under way, sponsored by the Institute for Policy Strategy of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.
The conference has become Israel’s own version of high-powered “retreats” such as the Aspen Institute conclave, where America’s elites gather, and the World Economic Forum assemblage at Davos, which brings together top-ranking international movers and shakers.
And that it is a draw for distinguished domestic and international policy makers, top-tier business leaders, illustrious academics and superb journalists is plainly a good thing. In the course of three days at this seaside resort, bankers, Diaspora leaders, military strategists, Knesset members, settlement activists, former ambassadors, Nobel Prize winners and cabinet members will have shared their thoughts on “The Balance of Israel’s National Security.”
The Herzliya Conference is by no means the only prominent gathering of its kind. Various big-league meetings over the year address crucial issues ranging from poverty, social welfare and Negev development to minority rights and easing religious tensions.
It has become a reality of Israeli political life that no less attention is paid to speeches made at such conferences than to those from the Knesset podium. And so, knowing his remarks would carry added weight, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz used his appearance at Herzliya on Saturday night to warn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “I suggest you take a look... and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people... they brought destruction to their own people.”
The Iranian-born Mofaz concluded: “I know the people of Iran and they should know that Ahmadinejad’s policies will bring disaster upon them.”
Yet – wouldn’t such a warning send an even sharper message delivered during a specially-called Knesset session?
Opposition leaders also use the Herzliya setting to make their case to the electorate, and the world. For instance, during his dinner speech last night, Likud Party Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said the security fence should be moved deeper into the West Bank.
Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz is expected to use his speech tonight to clarify his party’s position on Jerusalem.
But it’s Tuesday evening’s anticipated appearance by Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – coming on the eve of Palestinian elections – that is expected to garner the most attention.
Olmert, reportedly, will not advocate additional unilateral West Bank withdrawals.
Instead he will demand that the Palestinian Authority comply with its road map obligations requiring it to disband armed militias and dismantle the infrastructure that facilitates terrorism. Such a crackdown, it is understood, would be Kadima’s demand before reopening negotiations with the newly-elected Palestinian leadership.
In an ideal world, a head of government should use parliament – and not an academic conference – to unveil his policies and reveal, for example, Israel’s stance on a post-election role for Hamas and under what circumstances unilateralism would again become a policy option.
It was at the December 2003 Herzliya Conference, though, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon first announced: “If within a few months the Palestinians have not made reciprocal steps, we will take unilateral action.”
And it was at the Caesarea Conference in June 2005 that former finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu promised not to resign because of his opposition to disengagement.
Our problem is not that Israel’s top echelon flocks to Herzliya once a year. What we find disconcerting is the rarity with which the country’s leadership engages and attempts to persuade its citizens regarding the wisdom of its policies.
What’s needed is a change of mind-set. We would like to see Israel’s next prime minister – and opposition leader – making a point of using the Knesset (and regular, formal news conferences) to lay out their policies.
Effective leadership demands more than an annual Big Speech, no matter how effective the setting – or the cadence, rhythm, and imagery.
– Jerusalem Post Editorial, January 23, 2005
I am an Israel briefer and analyst, a political scientist, and a speaker on Jewish civilization. I'm also a rewrite guy & fact-checker, who can make your writing clear and compelling & help you contextualize.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Atomic Mullahs
The more you reflect on the coming showdown with Iran, the more you wonder why anyone would want to be the next prime minister of Israel.
My advice to Ehud Olmert, Binyamin Netanyahu and Amir Peretz is: Beware of people who speak knowledgeably about Iran, particularly men with epaulets, big-time pundits and eminent academics. What they don’t know about Iran could fill an encyclopedia.
And please don’t tell me what the newspapers are saying based on the prognostications of intelligence experts. If the analysts were so wide off the mark on Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” who’s to say they have a better handle on the situation in Iran?
Oil-rich Iran denies having spent the past 18 years in clandestine efforts aimed at building an atomic bomb; it claims to need nuclear know-how in order to generate electricity. But the belligerent character of the Islamist regime makes it impossible to look the other way. Why, for instance, does Teheran need the Shihab-3 ballistic missile, capable of striking Europe?
Charged with violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Teheran originally agreed to suspend nuclear activity during negotiations with Germany, France, and Britain (the EU-3). Now, however, it has announced plans to resume converting raw uranium into gas, a key step ahead of enrichment that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Last week Teheran upped the ante by breaking seals placed by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors at its Natanz facility.
So we know Iran is developing the capability to make nuclear weapons. We can only guess to what extent it intends to use such power.
Not only are Iran’s goals murky. No one really understands how critical decisions inside Teheran are made. The best guess is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not calling the shots, that critical decisions are reached by consensus within the ruling clique headed by “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei.
WE ALSO don’t know who has the power to order a nuclear attack against Israel if Teheran gets The Bomb. We don’t even know the names, much less the relative influences, of the players in Khamenei’s decision-making circle. In other words, we know less about Iranian decision making than the US thought it knew about the Soviet Union’s politburo during the Cold War.
Another thing we don’t know is whether efforts by EU-3 to haul Iran to the UN Security Council will succeed. We do know getting to this point has taken them three long years. China, a permanent Security Council member, has already signaled that it’s not keen on UN involvement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says responsibly: “Most important for us... [are] not our bilateral relations, our investments in the Iranian economy or our economic profit from cooperation with Iran. [Our] highest priority... is the prevention of the violation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.”
This laudable stance notwithstanding, on the same day Mother Russia announced plans to sell $1 billion worth of short-range missiles to Iran.
A MEETING on what the world powers will do next is set for London this week. Let’s say the crisis comes to the UN Security Council. No one – including the EU-3, or even the US – is talking about imposing genuinely draconian sanctions on Iran, the kind that would keep its oil and gas out of world markets; only, initially, a statement of criticism from the council.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tremble!
It’s easy to understand why the kind of trading ban that would get the attention of the mullahs is a long way off. Heavy-duty sanctions would likely have a devastating impact on the global economy, where a barrel of oil already costs more than $60.
But let’s, for argument’s sake, imagine that painful sanctions are imposed – toward what end? The Iranians, who are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, say they will stop cooperating voluntarily with the International Atomic Energy Agency if pushed into the corner. And if the sanctions’ goal is “regime change,” might not a global embargo actually bolster popular domestic support for the mullahs?
IN THIS array of the unknown, here’s what we do know: The US is tied down in Iraq. Large tracts of Afghanistan remain outside the central government in Kabul’s control. Both Ayman al-Zawahri (who some think is the real brains behind Osama bin Laden) and OBL himself remain at large. America’s military capabilities are stretched beyond capacity. The Bush administration is hardly in a position to rally American public opinion to confront the presumed Iranian threat.
In a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House on Friday, Bush – using Iraq-talk – said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose “a grave threat to the security of the world.” He specifically mentioned Iran’s threats against Israel. But a short while later White House press secretary Scott McClellan clarified that “Iraq and Iran are not the same situations.”
Over in London, asked if force against Iran was a possibility, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said: “No one is talking about invading Iran.”
He added: “Iran is not Iraq.”
The Iranians themselves are unhelpfully muddying the waters. Elaine Sciolino aptly summarized the state of play in The New York Times: “But along with the threat [to halt intrusive voluntary inspections] came explanations, offers to continue negotiating, expressions of defiance and even pleas for sympathy.”
Back to what we know: We know the Iranians aim to destroy Israel because they say so at every opportunity. We think we know that in about six months to a year they will have the know-how to make fissile material for a weapon. Once this point of “no return” is reached, the Iranians could have several atomic bombs as early 2009.
There’s no assurance – this we know – that a series of conventional Israel Air Force strikes against Iran’s multitude of nuclear facilities would deliver a knock-out blow to Teheran’s atomic ambitions. If we try and fail (or even if, incredibly, we succeed) a lethal conventional Iranian – or Iranian-proxy – response could nonetheless be forthcoming. Iran has said publicly that if it even suspects an imminent strike from the US or Israel, it will launch a preemptive attack against American forces in Iraq, and against Israel.
Still there’s no doubt that if the US and EU do what needs to be done, they will not face the logistical nightmare a similar campaign by the IAF would encounter.
WE DON’T know, assuming Iran obtains atomic bombs, whether the mullahs can be persuaded that the cost of using them (the destruction of Teheran, say) outweighs the “benefits” (wiping the Zionist entity off the face of the earth). Simply put, we don’t know whether the kind of mutual deterrence that kept the US and USSR from launching ballistic missiles against each another would work in our setting. Would rational self-interest trump Islamist apocalyptic thinking?
Could even rational mullahs, leading a country of 69 million people spread over 1.6 million square kilometers, resist a nuclear swing against their No. 1 enemy, whose tiny population is concentrated along a narrow coastal plan?
We know that during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war both Persians and Arabs showed no compunction about targeting each other’s (Muslim) population centers, and that the number of soldiers and non-combatants killed reached 1.5 million.
So here we are – in the dark, and under threat of extinction. At the end of the day, after the men with epaulets, the big-time pundits and the academics have had their say, Israel’s next prime minister will have a finite interlude and a dearth of unassailable intelligence upon which to base this decision: What to do about Iran.
elliot_jager@yahoo.com
My advice to Ehud Olmert, Binyamin Netanyahu and Amir Peretz is: Beware of people who speak knowledgeably about Iran, particularly men with epaulets, big-time pundits and eminent academics. What they don’t know about Iran could fill an encyclopedia.
And please don’t tell me what the newspapers are saying based on the prognostications of intelligence experts. If the analysts were so wide off the mark on Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” who’s to say they have a better handle on the situation in Iran?
Oil-rich Iran denies having spent the past 18 years in clandestine efforts aimed at building an atomic bomb; it claims to need nuclear know-how in order to generate electricity. But the belligerent character of the Islamist regime makes it impossible to look the other way. Why, for instance, does Teheran need the Shihab-3 ballistic missile, capable of striking Europe?
Charged with violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Teheran originally agreed to suspend nuclear activity during negotiations with Germany, France, and Britain (the EU-3). Now, however, it has announced plans to resume converting raw uranium into gas, a key step ahead of enrichment that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Last week Teheran upped the ante by breaking seals placed by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors at its Natanz facility.
So we know Iran is developing the capability to make nuclear weapons. We can only guess to what extent it intends to use such power.
Not only are Iran’s goals murky. No one really understands how critical decisions inside Teheran are made. The best guess is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not calling the shots, that critical decisions are reached by consensus within the ruling clique headed by “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei.
WE ALSO don’t know who has the power to order a nuclear attack against Israel if Teheran gets The Bomb. We don’t even know the names, much less the relative influences, of the players in Khamenei’s decision-making circle. In other words, we know less about Iranian decision making than the US thought it knew about the Soviet Union’s politburo during the Cold War.
Another thing we don’t know is whether efforts by EU-3 to haul Iran to the UN Security Council will succeed. We do know getting to this point has taken them three long years. China, a permanent Security Council member, has already signaled that it’s not keen on UN involvement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says responsibly: “Most important for us... [are] not our bilateral relations, our investments in the Iranian economy or our economic profit from cooperation with Iran. [Our] highest priority... is the prevention of the violation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.”
This laudable stance notwithstanding, on the same day Mother Russia announced plans to sell $1 billion worth of short-range missiles to Iran.
A MEETING on what the world powers will do next is set for London this week. Let’s say the crisis comes to the UN Security Council. No one – including the EU-3, or even the US – is talking about imposing genuinely draconian sanctions on Iran, the kind that would keep its oil and gas out of world markets; only, initially, a statement of criticism from the council.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tremble!
It’s easy to understand why the kind of trading ban that would get the attention of the mullahs is a long way off. Heavy-duty sanctions would likely have a devastating impact on the global economy, where a barrel of oil already costs more than $60.
But let’s, for argument’s sake, imagine that painful sanctions are imposed – toward what end? The Iranians, who are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, say they will stop cooperating voluntarily with the International Atomic Energy Agency if pushed into the corner. And if the sanctions’ goal is “regime change,” might not a global embargo actually bolster popular domestic support for the mullahs?
IN THIS array of the unknown, here’s what we do know: The US is tied down in Iraq. Large tracts of Afghanistan remain outside the central government in Kabul’s control. Both Ayman al-Zawahri (who some think is the real brains behind Osama bin Laden) and OBL himself remain at large. America’s military capabilities are stretched beyond capacity. The Bush administration is hardly in a position to rally American public opinion to confront the presumed Iranian threat.
In a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House on Friday, Bush – using Iraq-talk – said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose “a grave threat to the security of the world.” He specifically mentioned Iran’s threats against Israel. But a short while later White House press secretary Scott McClellan clarified that “Iraq and Iran are not the same situations.”
Over in London, asked if force against Iran was a possibility, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said: “No one is talking about invading Iran.”
He added: “Iran is not Iraq.”
The Iranians themselves are unhelpfully muddying the waters. Elaine Sciolino aptly summarized the state of play in The New York Times: “But along with the threat [to halt intrusive voluntary inspections] came explanations, offers to continue negotiating, expressions of defiance and even pleas for sympathy.”
Back to what we know: We know the Iranians aim to destroy Israel because they say so at every opportunity. We think we know that in about six months to a year they will have the know-how to make fissile material for a weapon. Once this point of “no return” is reached, the Iranians could have several atomic bombs as early 2009.
There’s no assurance – this we know – that a series of conventional Israel Air Force strikes against Iran’s multitude of nuclear facilities would deliver a knock-out blow to Teheran’s atomic ambitions. If we try and fail (or even if, incredibly, we succeed) a lethal conventional Iranian – or Iranian-proxy – response could nonetheless be forthcoming. Iran has said publicly that if it even suspects an imminent strike from the US or Israel, it will launch a preemptive attack against American forces in Iraq, and against Israel.
Still there’s no doubt that if the US and EU do what needs to be done, they will not face the logistical nightmare a similar campaign by the IAF would encounter.
WE DON’T know, assuming Iran obtains atomic bombs, whether the mullahs can be persuaded that the cost of using them (the destruction of Teheran, say) outweighs the “benefits” (wiping the Zionist entity off the face of the earth). Simply put, we don’t know whether the kind of mutual deterrence that kept the US and USSR from launching ballistic missiles against each another would work in our setting. Would rational self-interest trump Islamist apocalyptic thinking?
Could even rational mullahs, leading a country of 69 million people spread over 1.6 million square kilometers, resist a nuclear swing against their No. 1 enemy, whose tiny population is concentrated along a narrow coastal plan?
We know that during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war both Persians and Arabs showed no compunction about targeting each other’s (Muslim) population centers, and that the number of soldiers and non-combatants killed reached 1.5 million.
So here we are – in the dark, and under threat of extinction. At the end of the day, after the men with epaulets, the big-time pundits and the academics have had their say, Israel’s next prime minister will have a finite interlude and a dearth of unassailable intelligence upon which to base this decision: What to do about Iran.
elliot_jager@yahoo.com
I am an Israel briefer and analyst, a political scientist, and a speaker on Jewish civilization. I'm also a rewrite guy & fact-checker, who can make your writing clear and compelling & help you contextualize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)