Had the urge to go on that all-expenses paid 10-day tour of Israel? Or, conversely, had the urge to shove a group of 30 Americans out of the way while trying to walk to the market in Tel Aviv? The program, Birth Right, has been accused of having a not-so-hidden agenda to encourage ties between the Jewish Diaspora and the Jewish state. By flying in young Americans, the program attempts to bolster connections with Israel, push a religious/nationalist ideology, and encourage the integration of the world’s Jews.

Well, it seems to be working.

A new study reveals that Birth Right participants are 60-percent more likely to marry Jews than their non-Birth Right traveling cohorts.

This week’s JStreet conference led to proponents and opponents of the new group to claim victory. Supporters of the conference applauded the high levels of publicity and attendance at the event, while opponents used the speakers list and comments heard at the conference to reinforce their criticisms of the self proclaimed “pro peace, pro Israel” lobby. This Haaretz article sums up the event quite nicely.

For additional background, this oped in Ynet accuses J Street of putting Israel in harms way by its support for engagement with Iran and a two-state solution. The author writes:

“It makes little difference whether J Street’s intentions are sinister or sincere, or whether it is motivated by malice or myopia. For it is the substance of its proposals - not their motivation - that makes J Street such a grim threat to the Jews and the Jewish nation-state.”

The conference included some notable speakers that are indicative of the type engagement J Street supports. The closing line of the following paragraph summarizes the J Street constituency.

“Finally, we heard from the proprietor of the blog GazaMom.com, a hijab clad Palestinian woman who said she doesn’t consider Mahmoud Abbas to be the legitimate president of the Palestinian Authority. Does she support Hamas? Who knows. “Whenever I hear two-state solution, I shake my head,” she said, “I’m a one-stater.” Again the room erupted with applause. Philip Weiss, another blogger participating in the panel, looked around and said “there are many Zionists in this room, there are also some non-Zionists and anti-Zionists.” I would say that’s a pretty good description of the J Street conference as a whole.”

David Weinberg, director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, also accuses J Street of spouting “nonsense” and pushing the false notion that U.S. engagement in the peace process would ensure its success. He writes:

“J Street is a new form of Jewish apostasy. Its adherents hasten to embrace their Jewishness (even if they don’t really know much about authentic Jewish tradition and morality) in order to besmirch Israel and the mainstream Jewish community. They earnestly declare how “profoundly” Jewish they are, in order to engender a distancing in US-Israel relations.

I guess that’s why J Street has spent most of its resources bashing long-standing supporters of Israel – calling them extremists and right-wingers and accusing them of a “silencing” – and listing things that Israel must be made to do. All this, instead of calling out the dangers of Iranian nuclear weapons or Palestinian genocidal anti-Semitism. That’s why they fret over the Jewish soul instead of working to save and protect the physical Jewish State of Israel.

The only people clearly not fooled by all this spiritual mumbo-jumbo are Salam al-Mayarati, Ziad Asali, Trita Parsi and other leaders of the American Muslim Public Affairs Council, American Task Force on Palestine and the National Iranian American Council – all of whom are speaking – surprise, surprise – at the J Street Jewish soul jamboree this week. They undoubtedly see past the pious claptrap, and know – and appreciate – exactly what J Street is up to.”

On the  15 year anniversary of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, the focus is on how much has not changed and how much more work needs to be done. Namely, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to destabilize the region and prevent cooperation between every country.

In an interview with Middle East Progress, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, Jordan’s ambassador to the United States, reflects on the current situation and states:

“The Arab-Israel conflict remains a source of instability, tensions and hopelessness in the region. So despite our peace treaty with Israel, we cannot live in a peaceful and secure neighborhood as long as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict lingers on. The perpetuation of the conflict affects Jordan and Jordanians and certainly impacts our relations with Israel. Our bilateral relations with Israel do not exist in a vacuum.”

He also reiterated Jordanian support for the Obama administration’s efforts to pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace and emphasized areas where Jordan attempts to infuse some semblance of stability in the region. Al Hussein said:

“Jordan has also contributed to training Palestinian security forces, and continues to be the launching pad for all humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories.

As for the Arab Peace Initiative, as His Majesty King Abdullah pointed out, this landmark initiative has held up against all provocation, crisis and tensions in the Palestinian-Israeli and regional arenas. The Initiative ‘lays out the parameters of a comprehensive settlement—ending the occupation … creating a Palestinian state … and providing security guarantees and normal relations for Israel.’ It has been accepted by the Organization of Islamic Conference and thus enjoys the support of 57 countries—a third of the United Nations members who until today do not recognize Israel.

We have made a choice by endorsing and advancing the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers a comprehensive peace that meets the legitimate needs of all. Israel also has a choice: to be integrated into the region or as His Majesty said, remain fortress Israel, isolated and locked-in by the conflict.”

To honor the anniversary, the White House released the following statement:

“Today marks the anniversary of the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, signed fifteen years ago near the Israeli-Jordanian border. As we honor this historic event, we remember that peace is always possible despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The courage of King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin demonstrated that a commitment to communication, cooperation, and genuine reconciliation can help change the course of history. Today we honor the foresight of these leaders who stared down the past’s doubters and stood together in the interest of common progress. As we work with Arabs and Israelis to expand the circle of peace, we take inspiration from what Jordan and Israel achieved fifteen years ago, knowing that the destination is worthy of the struggle. “

The Palestinians recently embarked on another effort to search for a real leader that can unite all factions, work effectively with Israel toward a resolution, and maintain international legitimacy as a pro-democratic figurehead. Although that might be a little too much to ask.

The Palestinian Authority announced last week its intention to hold presidential and legislative elections on January 24 of next year. Hamas subsequently rejected participation in the elections, although the terror group may hold parallel elections in the Gaza Strip.

This disparity on elections represents a much larger historical phenomenon amongst the Palestinian factions -an inability to find a leader that unites rival Palestinian groups while also sustaining legitimacy in negotiations with Israel by thwarting terror. This characteristic of Palestinian politics pervades Israel, with skeptics of the peace process claiming that ‘Palestinians don’t know how to help themselves’ due to the near-constant attacks levied against the Jewish state. These critics within Israeli society could easily be silenced if Palestinians break an unfortunate pattern that began decades ago.

The story of failed leadership peaked with former Palestine Liberation Organization head and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, who maintained support from a significant portion of the populations living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but still failed to negotiate a lasting peace.

Arafat sustained stability within the territories by cracking down on democratic institutions, such as the press and political non-governmental organizations. However, he still preserved some level of international support for attempting to shepherd in the peace process. Regardless of Palestinian reverence for Arafat, domestic opposition to negotiations with Israel pervaded the territories, an issue that eventually led to the second intifada and Arafat’s dismissal by the Israeli government as powerless to clamp down on terror.

While Arafat championed the concept of Palestinian nationalism, he lacked the leadership necessary to help his people obtain sovereignty.

More recently, Palestinians disregard current PA President Mahmoud Abbas as unable to unite the various factions and even more incapable of cultivating the creation of an independent and sovereign state. His recent postponement of a vote on the Goldstone report led to additional drops in polling figures for the Palestinian leader and highlighted the growing domestic opposition to Abbas.

Similarly, Ismail Haniyeh and Aziz Duwaik, two top Hamas officials who effectively control the Gaza Strip, face minimal support in the West Bank and lack any credibility in the West and within Israel, effectively rendering them incapable of legitimately pursuing peace even if they desired.

From the Arafat years through the current era of competing governments in the territories, the Palestinians sought true leadership to foster the creation of an independent state, instead finding themselves without effective leaders.

Irrespective of their choices in the past, this January marks another opportunity for Palestinians to reassert a desire for peaceful coexistence with Israel in an independent state. Cries of victimization and oppression, however legitimate, can not serve as the foundation for sovereignty or economic and democratic growth.

Instead, Palestinians should rally behind a set of ideas that foster development on parallel initiatives- seeking a political solution to the conflict with Israel while also developing the needed institutions to promote internal growth.

Unpopular Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad embarked on a crusade recently to inspire his people to strive for a better future through hard work and determination. Instead of waiting for handouts from Israel, the Arab world, and the West, he has advocated for the development of institutions -such as an effective judiciary and security apparatus- to foster economic prosperity and provide a foundation for a future state.

None of the popular Palestinian leadership has the domestic or international credibility to sustain peaceful negotiations with Israel while also transforming the political landscape to promote internal and independent growth.

Whoever the Palestinians elect -or at least whoever takes power- should consider this different approach that currently lacks traction within the society largely due to domestic ambivalence and opposition for the one man, Fayyad, who champions these ideas.

Abbas lacks domestic support and repeatedly failed to reconcile rival factions to forge a foundation for a future state. Similarly, Haniyeh remains a terrorist that Israel would never accept at the negotiating table.

Conversely, Marwan Barghouti retains an anti-corruption reputation that could lead to support from proponents of both Fatah and Hamas. However, Barghouti remains locked behind bars in Israel for his hand in terror attacks. Even if Israel agrees to release him, questions persist on Barghouti’s desire to reject violence as a means to achieving an independent state.

While Fayyad truly possess a vision for his people, he has virtually no support among the Palestinian population, one of the reasons that Abbas tapped him as Prime Minister following the disputed 2006 elections.

This void in effective leadership could either be filled through the reinventing of previously failed Palestinian leaders or through the emergence of a new voice. Either way, by promoting independent institutions, forging a foundation for a developing society, and fostering democratic values, the Palestinians can create a thriving society to coexist alongside Israel.

The next Palestinian leader should embrace this concept of institution building to transform victimization and oppression into prosperity and sovereignty.

The latest round of bitterlemons opinions includes a wide array of opinions on the impact of Palestinian reconciliation on the peace process and relations with Israel.

Ghassan Khatib’s article describes reconciliation as “against Israel’s interests,” with the author stating:

“Israel doesn’t want Palestinian unity, because that would shift the political balance of power more in favor of the Palestinians. Maintaining a divided Palestinian arena also enables the right-wing Israeli government to escape its obligations under previous agreements such as the roadmap. Furthermore, Israel has successfully blamed Palestinian divisions for the failure of the peace process.”

Similarly, Ron Pundak writes that only divisions withing Palestinian society can shepherd in the peace process that would culminate in a two-state solution. He writes:

“Right now Hamas senses that time is working in its favor and that an agreement with Fateh will help it carry out a hostile takeover of the West Bank, as it did in Gaza two years ago. On the other hand, if Abu Mazen signs a peace agreement with Israel and the public broadly supports it, Hamas would have no alternative but to adapt to a new reality. Hamas listens to the public; even terrorist attacks that may seem uncoordinated are linked to public opinion, and Hamas feels at times obliged to reduce the violence. Accordingly, the relatively moderate current in Hamas could accept, even if ostensibly temporarily, the reality of an agreement that creates a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and ultimately contains a realistically-sized Hamas (8-15 percent) within a Palestinian state living in peace and security next to Israel.”

Yossi Alpher writes that the current situation in Gaza differentiates it with the West Bank to a point that the territories must be dealt with separately and under their own terms. He writes:

“Yet, if there is to be any viability to the notion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace process mediated by the United States, it’s time for all parties concerned to recognize that, for the time being at least, Gaza is a separate entity. We all have to begin reevaluating our failed strategies for Gaza. We need to look for new strategies that don’t interfere with the process but are not, of necessity, a part of that process.”

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights issued a policy paper condemning elections without reconciliation first as “impossible.”

Check out fellow FPA blogger Sean Murphy’s recent post on a movie regarding the Second Lebanon War.

The Washington Post published two somewhat informative interviews today, one with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the other with Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad.

The significantly more interesting interview with Fayyad largely deals with his role and his vision for the establishment of institutions for a future Palestinian state. He stresses that Israel had the institutions established prior to its declaration of independence in 1948, an effort that Fayyad wishes to further develop in the Palestinian territories. The notable questions and answers include (questions in italics, answers in normal font):

“So you have a plan to create institutions and a state within two years?

We’ve committed ourselves to a path of completing the task of institution building. [This means] the capacity to govern ourselves effectively in all spheres of government within two years.

So does that mean a central bank, roads?

It means all of that. We now have a monetary authority that is almost like a central bank. We have a public financial system that is well managed. It has won the confidence not only of the Palestinian people but certainly of our donors, including especially the United States.

What are the other institutions?

We are talking about security capability, law and order, including a well-functioning judiciary. Security is not complete unless there is a widespread belief on the part of the public that there is due process. . . .

Additionally, [we need] physical infrastructure to provide services effectively to our people in all areas — social services, health, education. . . . The idea behind this is to ensure that in a couple of years, it will not be difficult for people looking at us from any corner of the universe to conclude that the Palestinians have a state.

Do you think you should declare a state in 2011?

I said this will be the program of the Palestinian government — it will commit itself to deliver the state in terms of capacity within two years. That is new in Palestinian politics. Usually, when you have a new government, the norm is for the government to say, here is our plan, a wish list of things — not a real plan.

People have compared you to the early Zionists, who built institutions.

I keep telling people, Israel was not created in 1948. Israel was proclaimed as a state in 1948. The institutions of the state were there before 1948.

We look . . . to establish Palestine as an independent, democratic, progressive and modern Arab state, with full sovereignty over its territory, the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Palestine will reject violence, commit to coexistence with its neighbors.

You’re not a member of Fatah, are you?

No, I’m not.

But do you think of yourself as the Ben Gurion of the Palestinian people?

What I really want is for people to believe that this can happen. . . . We, more than anyone else, need good government. You know, let’s get on with it. To the extent that poor governance was used as a disqualifier, by doing it right, this is an instrument of liberation.

In mid-2007, I took over. I say to people, Two years ago I came to you and talked about this. I can understand it if some of you thought, ‘Sounds good, but it’s not going to happen.’ But here we are. This school is there. The water pump is [working]; electricity is on. And just as one school happened, the next one will happen.

It must include the Jordan Valley and what else?

The so-called Area C [controlled totally by Israel], including the Jordan Valley. We are not able to generate adequate resources because our economy is shackled by these restrictions.

I thought the economy was growing at something like 8 percent?

If not even more. It’s very good.

. . . But the question is, is this sustainable?

. . . The state we are looking for is not one that is perpetually dependent on aid. It is not realistic to expect the world to continue to pour cash in.”

Regarding Camp David 2000, Fayyad made another interesting comment that ties along with the criticism of Palestinian governance by many Israelis- the alleged lack of accountability for rejecting  to improve the situation in the territories. Fayyad said:

“Surely [Yasser] Arafat could have accepted then-Prime Minister [Ehud] Barak’s offer?

It seems like the Palestinians are always turning down deals. . . . We end up kind of in a corner and it looks like it’s our fault it didn’t happen. A case in point is what happened in the settlement business.

. . . I think it’s important for there to be a freeze. How can people continue to buy into this process if they continue to see more settlement activity coming at the expense of expropriation of Palestinian land?”

Netanyahu said that the Israeli government and the Obama administration are actually cooperating on a much deeper level than generally reported. Netanyahu also reiterated the standard Israeli lines, but most interestingly said:

“Israel is not a binational state. It has non-Jews who live here with full, equal rights, but it has two things that assure its special character. It’s the homeland of any Jew. And there is a very broad consensus in Israel that the Palestinian refugee problem should be resolved outside Israel’s borders. Jews come here and Palestinians will go there. So choose. That’s the basis of a solution.

I gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University in which I said [this]. It wasn’t easy but I did it. There has yet to be a Palestinian leader who actually turns to his people and says, ‘We’re not going to have a state that will continue to make demands on Israel. It’s over. We recognize that Israel is the Jewish state just as we ask the Israelis to recognize the Palestinian state. . . .’

The popular explanation is that this conflict is about the territories captured in the 1967 war. So why did the conflict rage [when] there were no settlements? The Arabs fought wars and terror campaigns in the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s against any Jewish state, and then they rejected the partition. Our presence in the territories is not the cause of the conflict but one of its results.

. . . I’m not talking about Hamas. I’m talking about the moderates. . . . We will end the conflict by establishing a state. That simple truth requires a lot of courage from the Palestinian leadership. They have to stand up and say we will make a final peace with the Jewish state of Israel. Courage is required on both sides.”

Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman will testify next week before a House subcommittee on the region. Whatever he on Israel and the Palestinians may not make headlines, but watching the webcast may prove insightful to the administration’s views. However, testimony from the White House, which has taken the lead on Israel-Palestine talks, would prove a more in depth view of current negotiations.

Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia

GARY L. ACKERMAN (D-NY), CHAIRMAN

A Regional Overview of the Middle East

You are respectfully requested to attend the following open hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

DATE

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

TIME

1:00 PM

LOCATION

Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building

WITNESSES

The Honorable Jeffrey D. Feltman
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
U.S. Department of State

NOTE

The hearing has been rescheduled from an earlier date of September 15, 2009.
Witnesses may be added.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas officially called for Parliamentary and presidential elections to be held January 24 of next year, a move rebukes Egyptian efforts to reconcile Palestinian factions. Abbas said:

“The Palestinian people in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are called to take part in the general presidential and parliamentary election on Sunday, January 24, 2010.”

Hamas rejected the call for elections may hold parallel elections in the Gaza Strip on the same day using its own rules to govern the process.

In response to the call for elections, an Islamic Jihad officials said,

“The Palestinian people are anxiously awaiting reconciliation and (Abbas’) move only complicates matters. I don’t think elections can be held in the Gaza Strip in light of the ongoing division.”

Egyptian officials, particularly President Hosni Mubarak, have attended to forge a peace agreement between the rival Fatah and Hamas factions. Mubarak masqueraded himself through the media as a major broker in Middle East negotiations, even though his repeated efforts to foster cooperation within Palestinian society and between Palestinians and Israel have failed. The latest rounds of intra-Palestinian negotiations largely focussed on the timing of elections and representation within the legislature.

It remains unclear who will lead the ballot for Hamas and Fatah. Since the controversy over the disputed Goldstone report, Abbas’ poll numbers have steadily dropped. To lead the Palestinian Authority, Abbas could face serious opposition from Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, who remains in an Israeli prison and is a highly respected former intra-party adversary to Yasser Arafat.

Photo from Ma’an News.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice lauded Israeli President Shimon Peres at a speech today in Jerusalem. Some of the notable comments include:

“Meir Dizengoff, the founder of Tel Aviv, was once asked how does one become the Mayor of a city in Israel. He replied, “First, you build the city.” Well, the life of Shimon Peres suggests that one way to become President of the State of Israel is that, first, you build the State of Israel.
Mr. President, you helped bring Israel into being. As Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, you helped Israel grow strong, thrive, defend herself, and move toward peace. You helped forge the enduring peace treaty with Jordan and helped make historic breakthroughs with the Palestinians that still point our way ahead. And as President, you are using an amazing life’s wisdom to secure your country’s future and raise our sights toward a day when all this region’s children can live in the peace and security they so deserve.
By my count, President Peres has worked closely with 10 American Presidents, from Kennedy to Obama. So your life tracks the life of the very special relationship between our two countries. The United States and Israel share a deep and abiding friendship and an unbreakable bond, rooted in common interests and common values. We meet today at a moment of great global change, but we again affirm an essential truth that will never change: the United States of America remains fully and firmly committed to the peace and security of the State of Israel. That commitment spans generations and political parties. It is not negotiable. And it will never be negotiable.”

Rice also made comments about democracy, comments that could apply to attempted democratic reforms in the Palestinian Authority. She said:

“And finally, we must all take responsibility for advancing democracy’s cause. America believes that all citizens should have a say in how they are governed and that ordinary men and women should have confidence in the impartial administration of justice. We don’t believe that democracy can be imposed on others by force. As Senator Robert Kennedy argued with prophetic power in 1966, “Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others. What is important is that all nations must march toward increasing freedom; toward justice for all; toward a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all its own people and a world of immense and dizzying change.” But there is nothing—nothing—relative about America’s convictions. We will always stand for the student who hungers to be taught, for the voter who demands to be heard, for the innocent who longs to be free.”