Iran as seen from Jerusalem - Tuesday

A taste of freedom

The footage is surreptitious and lacks narration. Viewers see hundreds of protesters being chased by truncheon-wielding policemen on motorcycles; one motorbike on its side, is ablaze. The demonstrators, supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, are certain their man defeated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Friday's Iranian presidential election, and that authorities manipulated the results.

Though Mousavi was pre-approved to compete in the election by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his candidacy unexpectedly became a rallying point for an urbane constituency that felt socially and economically stifled by Ahmadinejad's demagoguery.

The protests in Teheran and elsewhere are relatively small and sporadic. Mousavi has asked the Guardian Council, the mullahs charged with validating the election, not to. Meanwhile, Khamenei declared Ahmadinejad the winner and invited the nation to celebrate a miraculous turnout.

The regime has cut off social networking sites (Facebook and Twitter), making it hard for dissidents to organize. Cell phone service is sporadic. SMS is blocked. Foreign news broadcasts are being jammed. The government-subservient media are playing down, or not covering the opposition.

Mousavi was spotted yesterday addressing thousands from the roof of a car after loyalists fought off Ahmadinejad's thugs. Scores of other Mousavi supporters are in jail. Earlier, he urged followers to continue their protests "in a peaceful and legal way."

But authorities, perhaps hearing the chants of "Death to the dictator" - a common refrain against the shah - and "We want freedom," say the opposition has crossed the line into treason. While there were popular expressions of discontent in 1999 and 2003, the BBC is reporting that nothing like the current disturbances has been seen in Iran since the 1979 Revolution. Iran's masses have tasted "democracy," only to have it snatched away. Their rulers now expect them to return to a state of somnolence.

Out of guile - or perhaps trepidation - Khamenei has decided to complement the regime's big stick with a carrot: He ordered the Guardian Council to "precisely consider" allegations that the election was marred by fraud.

IF HE did have the election rigged, Khamenei may have decided that the regime did not need a less malevolent persona. After all, he's done pretty well with Ahmadinejad as his number one: Iran's program to build an atom bomb is on track. Trade with the EU, Russia and China is brisk. The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, enthusiastically parlays with his Hizbullah proxies in Beirut, even as Western European diplomats flirt with Iranian-backed Palestinian extremists in Gaza. The Obama administration seems pleasantly quiescent. Bellicosity has produced dividends. Why change a winning strategy?

As The New York Times reported, "Ahmadinejad is the shrewd and ruthless front man for a clerical, military and political elite that is more unified and emboldened than at any time since the 1979 revolution."

Ahmadinejad himself is demanding obeisance: "We are now asking the positions of all countries regarding the elections, and assessing their attitude to our people."

Dutifully, the emir of Qatar, and the leaders of Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Venezuela, along with the Arab League's Amr Moussa, Hamas and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, all congratulated him on his marvelous victory.

It is true that the German and French foreign ministries expressed mild disappointment at the way the election played out. The US, which lauded the campaign, was circumspect, saying it hoped the elections reflected the will of the Iranian people.

US policy on Iran remains unsettled. Dennis Ross, appointed in February as the administration's point man, is being shifted to another job. Before that he was known to support a dialogue with Iran on the grounds that it would make tougher US policies more palatable. His reassignment could signal that the America is getting wobbly.

So it seems whimsical to imagine - when negotiations finally commence between the West and Teheran, with the Obama administration's active involvement - that Khamenei will allow himself to be talked into abandoning his ambitions to make Iran a nuclear power. Ditto that he will stop supporting Hizbullah and Hamas.

Elections notwithstanding, real power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader. Still, America's president could take the brazen Khamenei down a peg or two by expressing solidarity with Iranians' clear desire for real freedom.

Will he?

Netanyahu's Speech on the nature of a Palestinian state Israel can live with

Vision for Reconciliation


Forget President Barack Obama and the Arabs for a moment. Did Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University last night outlining his vision of Arab-Israel peace satisfy mainstream Israelis? Did it contribute to shaping an Israeli consensus?

The answer: Yes.

Since he took office in March, the premier has been promising to articulate an approach to negotiations with the Palestinians. He skipped the AIPAC policy conference in early May because he wanted Obama to be the first to hear his "policy reassessment."

Yet when he arrived at the White House on May 18, he seemingly forgot to pack a coherent proposal. Instead, Obama greeted him with a reiteration of George W. Bush's call for a Palestinian state, and with a vigorous advocacy of America's long-standing demand for a settlement freeze.

Most Americans favor a two-state solution and think it would be good for Israel. Most Israelis acknowledge that the creation of a Palestinian state is in their national interest. The concern has been: What kind of Palestinian state? They don't want the prototype to be Hamas's mini-state in the Gaza Strip.

It is the Palestinians who have opposed sharing this land, justifying our fears of their intentions. Since the days of the UN Partition Plan, through Ehud Barak's territorial offer in 2000 and Ehud Olmert's in 2008, it is the Palestinians who have been saying no. Lately, however, because Netanyahu hadn't explicitly endorsed the two-state solution, the perception was growing that Israel was the problem.

Last Monday, Netanyahu telephoned Obama to tell him of his plans to finally deliver that long-awaited policy reassessment.

The build-up was worth it. The Bar-Ilan speech was of historic importance.

LAST NIGHT, Netanyahu announced his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

The territorial details will need to be negotiated. And the Palestinian leadership will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and abandon the demand to resettle in it millions of descendants of the original 650,000 Arab refugees from the War of Independence.

This offer - coming from a Likud leader - is momentous.

Now the ball is in the Arab court. Will the Arab states accept the idea of a demilitarized Palestine living side by side with a Jewish Israel?

Will the international community - and particularly the Obama administration - embrace Netanyahu's vision? If they do not, it will shatter the hopes of mainstream Israelis and doom the prospects of peace.

Netanyahu's speech demonstrated that Israeli governments honor the commitments of their predecessors. It will be interesting now to see whether the White House, implicitly or explicitly, stands behind George W. Bush's April 2004 "1967-plus" letter. Though that commitment was also overwhelmingly endorsed by congressional resolutions (and supported by then senator Hillary Clinton), Obama has yet to back it. Fresh surveys show most Americans do.

Netanyahu was right to say that settlements are not the main obstacle to peace. While most Israelis do not support unauthorized outposts, they do want to find a reasonable compromise with the US over natural growth in settlements that Israel intends to retain under a permanent accord.

A NEW survey by The Israel Project shows that American popular support for Israel, while strong, is ebbing. Even among staunchly pro-Israel Republicans, support dropped from 72 percent to 65%; and 50% to 38% among Democrats in the past six months. Fewer Americans think Israel is committed to peace. Conversely, last year 61% of Americans thought the Palestinians were not committed to peace. Now, only 49% think they are the problem.

To state the obvious: Washington is Israel's only steadfast military and diplomatic ally; US military aid for 2009 is $2.55 billion (25% of which may be spent locally). But the alliance is vital for far more than financial reasons. We cannot take this relationship for granted. No doubt an appreciation of this reality informed Netanyahu's remarks.

The premier's speech was delivered the day after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad solidified his leadership in Iran, and as infiltration attempts and Kassam launchings from Gaza appear to be on the rise.

Now is the time for Israelis to pull together, for the national interest to take precedence over partisan preferences. Above all, now is the time for the US to persuade the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table and pursue Netanyahu's call for a viable reconciliation.

The Iranian vote as seen from Jerusalem

Does Iran's vote matter?


The United States stands ready to engage Iran in "serious dialogue," President Barack Obama reiterated in Dresden last Friday.

Formal talks - on bilateral relations and halting Teheran's quest for nuclear arms - await the outcome of today's Iranian presidential election. Obama indicated that there would be a "serious process of engagement, first through the P5-plus-one process" (meaning the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) and "potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran."

If these talks prove unsatisfactory after six months or so, Washington could then, in conjunction with the P5-plus-one, seek to ratchet up economic sanctions against the Islamic republic. While this glacially-slow scenario stretches out, the centrifuges will spin and multiply. Iran's drive for atomic weapons and the means to deliver them will appear ever more inexorable.

But what if Obama's softer tone encourages Iranian voters to walk away from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the grounds that his braying has become superfluous and the American "threat" has diminished? And wouldn't our region be a better place if the demagogic Ahmadinejad was replaced by the reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi?

Perhaps. But likely not.

First off, the real authority in Iran, the figure who sits above all levers of power, is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The president is subservient to him.

One sure sign that a US-Iranian dialogue was being taken seriously in Teheran would be the extent to which Khamenei himself was engaged.

All too helpfully for the mullahs, an Ahmadinejad defeat would distance the regime from the odious Holocaust-denier. A Mousavi victory would provide it with a human face, making it even less likely that the P5-plus-one would stop the mullahs from building a bomb.

All the candidates - Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, and dark-horse challengers Mahdi Karoubi and Mohsen Rezaei - concur that Iran's nuclear program, which they insist is for peaceful civilian purposes, must remain inviolate. All are willing to improve relations with the US in return for fundamental "changes" in American policy. None can be expected to downgrade Iran's proxy relationship with Hizbullah, or its support of Palestinian Islamists.

Domestically, Mousavi and Karoubi oppose the coercive approach Ahmadinejad's supporters take regarding Islamic dress and social behavior. The president's opponents also say that the economy should be doing a lot better considering that Iran has the world's second-biggest oil and gas reserves. Inflation is high, between 14 and 24 percent, depending on how the numbers are massaged. Unemployment stands at 17%, particularly significant in a country where half the population is 27 years old or younger.

Ahmadinejad is leading in the polls thanks to support from the downtrodden masses, whose lives he has dramatically improved by raising salaries and benefits. Mousavi's supporters are more urbane. They want to see investment that fosters long-term economic growth.

ALL THE trappings of democracy are on display: elections, candidate debates, mass rallies - even mudslinging. For the regime's Western apologists, this proves that while Iranian democracy may be "incomplete" (since only candidates vetted by Khamenei are eligible to run), the country is far from being the totalitarian ogre that Zionist "demonizers" claim.

Admittedly, we find it difficult to keep an open mind with the Supreme Leader constantly denouncing Israel as a "cancerous growth," as he did on the same day Obama spoke in Cairo. We've noted, too, that his Revolutionary Guard warned that once the election is decided - no more mass rallies… or else.

Speaking of mudslinging, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad have been doing lots of it. Rafsanjani, a former president, is one of the most well-connected and richest men in Iran. He sits on the Council of Experts, which has the theoretical power to remove Khamenei himself. Rafsanjani wrote the Supreme Leader to complain about Ahmadinejad saying Rafsanjani had enriched himself during his presidency. Ahmadinejad is angry because Rafsanjani's organization is backing Mousavi's campaign. Rafsanjani-commissioned polls show Mousavi with a 56-42 lead. To ensure the election isn't stolen, Rafsanjani's forces are fielding 50,000 poll-watchers. International monitors are barred.

The election results will be known tomorrow. But no matter the outcome, the international community needs a timely way to get the Supreme Leader's attention - or the big losers will continue to be the Iranian people and their neighbors in the region.

Here come the judge...here come the judge...

For consensual judges


Israelis, like most Americans and Brits, wouldn't recognize a Supreme Court justice or Law Lord if they tripped over him in the supermarket. Even Sonia Sotomayor, recently nominated by President Barack Obama to the US Supreme Court, is not a familiar face to Americans. With a few notable exceptions, the justices of our Supreme Court are equally anonymous.

How many of us can conjure up the images of justices Salim Joubran, Hanan Meltzer or Asher Dan Grunis? Yet these mostly faceless jurists have profound influence over our lives.

Israel's court has both appellate and original jurisdiction, depending on how the justices constitute themselves. To date, the body has been comprised of mostly (though not exclusively) like-minded types: liberal ex-judges who subscribe to a philosophy of judicial activism, and in all likelihood attended the same law school.

The justices have been more than just a homogeneous bunch; they've practically replicated themselves. That's why when the name of distinguished legal scholar Ruth Gavison was floated for a possible Supreme Court vacancy, it was immediately shot down on the grounds that she wouldn't fit in.

Israel's system for selecting judges is even more viscerally partisan than America's. Nominees do not go before a Knesset committee for vetting and confirmation. Instead, they are chosen by the Judges Selection Committee.

Now though, that committee's membership has been re-jigged to accommodate the wishes of the current government and Knesset; its traditionally liberal-leaning make-up has been dramatically diluted with the appointments of MK Uri Ariel (National Union), David Rotem (Israel Beiteinu) and Gilad Erdan (Likud). Also on the committee are: Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch and her two colleagues Ayala Procaccia and Edmond Levy. The chair is veteran legal powerhouse and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman. Rounding out the membership are Pinhas Marinsky and Rachel Ben-Ari of the Israel Bar Association.

It may seem odd that the largest and most cohesive bloc on a committee to select judges is comprised of already sitting judges; but until now, these jurists have been in a position to veto some candidates and push through others they favored. It may be more difficult to do so now.

THIS DILUTION in the selection committee's ideological bent - Ariel, from the most narrow right-wing party in the Knesset, is a strident supporter of unauthorized settlement outposts - troubles centrist Zionists as well as liberals. He defeated Kadima's Ronnie Bar-On for the prestigious appointment. Liberals are chagrined that a member of the largest Knesset faction (Kadima) wasn't chosen in line with recent practice - though this happened in only three of our 18 Knessets.

In Israel's fractious polity, where the legislature commonly shirks its responsibilities in such areas as civil liberties and providing necessary legal protections for the Palestinian Arabs of Judea and Samaria, their enforcement has fallen to the Supreme Court - which has occasionally gone too far.

The court is now being asked to decide whether building may go ahead on 24 homes in the settlement of Halamish. Another panel will hear petitions against the Tal Law, which provides army and national service deferments for ultra-Orthodox youths. At stake is whether the law should be repealed on the grounds that it is ineffective since so few haredim serve.

Beyond the question of the ideological leanings of the new judges the selection committee will send to the court is their philosophy. Will they be interventionist? Will they narrowly apply Israel's constitution-in-the-making, or interpret it broadly by giving existing statutes creative interpretations that move society in a more progressive direction?

IT IS not unreasonable for the committee to better reflect the gamut of views in our hyper-pluralist society. Otherwise the legitimacy of the court's decisions will continue to be challenged by broad sectors of the population - something that undermines the stability of the political system.

Still, we strongly urge the newly composed selection committee to seek out consensual candidates on the basis not of ideology, but wisdom and judicial temperament. We need jurists who are not tied to a judicial philosophy - activism or restraint - or, myopically, to political dogma, but judges who will protect civil liberties and human rights while anchoring their decisions in reasoning that fair-minded citizens can subscribe to.

Europeans elect a new parliament -- What it means for Israel

Europe votes


Israelis tend to look straight past nearby Europe as we cast our eyes pensively toward Washington. For obvious reasons, we're apt to worry more about whether Barack Obama loves us than whether European Commission President José Manuel Barroso does.

Yet, as Prof. Sharon Pardo of Ben-Gurion University reminds us, Israel is situated not along the Atlantic, but the Mediterranean coast, making Europe "our immediate and natural ally."

So when Europeans elect a new parliament, as they did on Sunday, it behooves Israelis to take notice, not because the new legislature will be more sympathetic toward us - it won't - but because our relations with Europe are supremely important: Most of what we import comes from Europe, and that's where most of what we export goes.

THE CONTINENT finds itself in a malaise. The worldwide economic downturn hit it even harder than America. National and ethnic chauvinism is on the rise. The hope that the 27 EU countries, combined population 491 million, would by now be a single supra-national entity has been bitterly dashed. Indeed, as The New York Times reported recently, many Europeans think that when it comes to the economy, the EU is part of the problem, not the solution.

Only 43 percent of 375 million eligible voters participated in the parliamentary elections, compared to 62% in 1979. Parties that say the EU is on the wrong path, or more trouble than it's worth, gained while those affiliated with Britain's beleaguered Labor Party, Germany's Social Democrats and France's Socialist Party did poorly.

The new EU parliament will have 736 members, the single largest bloc staying with the European People's Party (264). The EPP is center-right: pro-EU (unlike the Euro-skeptical British Tories) and pro-free market.

Lamentably, on Israel, the EPP holds to the dominant "pro-Israel" European line which, in practice, shows little empathy for this country's unique security predicament. While the EPP embraces the Quartet's position on negotiations with Hamas, it still wants Israel to lift an embargo which limits the type of goods that can enter the Strip.

The election also sent a number of far-Right and anti-immigrant parties to parliament, some of them anti-Jewish. The British National Party won two seats. Jobbik - the Movement for a Better Hungary, a self-described "radically patriotic Christian party," won one or two seats.

Not all the fringe parties are anti-Israel. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, whose Freedom Party is stridently opposed to continued Muslim immigration, is actually staunchly pro-Israel.

ISRAEL'S critics in the EU are working diligently to torpedo trade relations with us. They are trying to engineer boycotts against Israeli fruit, vegetables and olive oil, on the dubious grounds that these goods are produced by settlers on "occupied Palestinian land." If successful, the critics will be pushing for broader economic, scientific and cultural sanctions to force Israel back to the hard-to-defend 1949 Armistice Lines. To be fair, some honestly believe that doing so will help Israel and bring peace.

Out of an annual EU Commission budget of 120 billion euros, hundreds of millions flow to Palestinian projects. Needless to say, no one contemplates using this leverage to encourage a less intransigent negotiating position on the part of Mahmoud Abbas. Yet significant monies are also directed to Israel-based advocacy groups working to make Israeli policies more compliant.

Israel's relationship with the EU is governed by an Association agreement, but progress on renewing and upgrading relations has come to a halt in order to pressure the Netanyahu government. The EU is also displeased with how Israel battled Hamas in Gaza. The EU supports Israel's right to protect its civilians - so long as this can be done without jeopardizing Palestinian civilians.

THIS WEEK'S EU elections portend no policy shifts on Israel, but they do remind us that as important as ties are, we no longer share the same values. The ethos of the EU is for solving conflicts through negotiations and for the free movement of persons. Though key EU officials are intimately familiar with our security situation, they profess not to be able to fathom why a template that works so well in Europe is unfeasible here - to put it mildly.