Is a post-America Israel beginning to take shape?

Is there a question? This is the emes, as my mother (zt'l) used to say. As I've said consistently, in the end, Israel will take care of Israel, and if the CEO of India's major steel manufacturer was in Jerusalem at the same time as Bush, it got NO play in any media of which I am aware. The Daily Star is publishing some sense. RS


Is a post-America Israel beginning to take shape?
By Dominique Moisi

Thursday, May 29, 2008



Israel is one of the only places in the world where US President Georges W. Bush can be greeted with real enthusiasm and even affection. The most unpopular American president in recent history thus relished his recent triumphal welcome in Jerusalem, where he was the guest of honor of the International Conference planned and devised by Israeli President Shimon Peres on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish state.

Historical revisionism was near the top of the agenda, with the United States portrayed as Israel's most faithful supporter and ally since 1948. But in fact, George C. Marshall, the US secretary of state in 1948, sought to prevent President Harry Truman from recognizing Israel. Likewise, the Suez crisis of 1956, when the US thwarted a joint French, British, and Israeli plan to seize the Suez Canal, was presented in a politically correct light, as were Henry Kissinger's complex diplomacy during the October war of 1973.

The hugging and kissing between Bush, Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were undeniably moving, but they were also troubling - and not only because serious references to the Palestinians were, for the most part, not on the agenda. One had the feeling that this was something akin to dancing on the Titanic - the culmination of a privileged partnership at its tipping point, a grand gala for something that was about to disappear.

This is not only a matter of leaders - Bush and Olmert - on their way out. Beyond the celebration of eight exceptional years of "unique friendship" under Bush, it also seemed clear that the 41-year-old special relationship inaugurated by the 1967 war, when the US became Israel's main backer, might be coming to an end.

The next US president, whether he is Barack Obama or John McCain, will certainly maintain the close bilateral alliance. But it will not be the same: Even if America remains an indispensable nation, it will no longer be the only one. While Bush was in Jerusalem, so too was India's Lakmar Mittal, the king of the world's steel industry. If Bush was the departing present, Mittal represents the incipient future, in which America will have to share influence with emerging powers such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, and eventually, if its members get their act together, the European Union.

In fact, Israelis are already debating the meaning of the emerging post-American "multipolar world" for their country's security. Will it really be such a bad thing, or might it hold some redeeming value?

The close bond between Israel and Bush's America can in retrospect be seen as a mixed blessing: a special relationship that contributed to the declining attractiveness of both countries. Israel, rightly, may not be ready to exchange US support for that of any other power, but Israeli leaders, having kept all their eggs in one basket for so long, will now have to factor not only American concerns and interests into their decision-making, but those of the other powers as well.

Thus, the problem for Israel is not to replace the backing provided by "300 million Americans," as Bush put it in Jerusalem, but to add to it the sympathetic interest of more than 3 billion Chinese, Indians, Russians and others in Israel's future in a pacified Middle East. The question is not so much one of substituting alliances, but of creating a complementary system of security.

In their effort to achieve international respect and legitimacy as stakeholders in today's evolving international system, countries such as China, India, and even Russia have a greater interest in stability than in global confusion. For them, a nuclear Iran led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is seen more as a threat than as a card they can play, even if their actions thus far in regard to Iran do not always match their long-term strategic interests.

In fact, when it comes to deterring Iran from developing nuclear weapons - or, for that matter, exerting pressure on Israel and the Palestinians (including Hamas) to reach a compromise - a group of powers such as the US, China, India, and Russia might produce better results than a sole superpower imprisoned by its own contradictions and limitations.

Israel's nimble society and economy seem perfectly designed for the post-American era of political and economic globalization. Equally important, Israel will be forced to confront the reality of Palestinian despair, which the unique relationship with America has allowed it to obfuscate and evade for too long.



Dominique Moisi, a founder and senior adviser the French Institute for International Relations, is currently a professor at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate (c) (www.project-syndicate.org).

Losing Palestine - The View of Arab Young People

Note the overall tone here of defeatism as it relates to pan-Arab nationalism and of resignation to the existence of Israel and even grudging admiration for what Israel has done in 60 years, while the "leaders" of the Arab world keep the Palestinian people in ruins. There is likewise a stunning misconception, perhaps ignorance, of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews were "ethnically cleansed" from Arab lands and had nowhere to go but Israel. One person makes reference to the "blockade" of Gaza. Indeed, but humanitarian aid was and is always allowed in. Further, they do not know of the Hamas attacks on fuel depots in Israel and then blame Israel for cutting off fuel supplies. If pan-Arabism was so strong, and the Arab leadership cared so much about their Palestinian brethren, they would be using some of their wealth to help them out of the misery that is in large measure of their own making. Now if Israel can just somehow successfully deal with Hamas and Hezbollah, peace may have a chance. "Success", however, is a loaded word. RS

Losing Palestine
By
Adam Makary

Arab communities see May 8, 1948 as a pivotal date in their history marking defeat and the loss of Palestine [EPA]

As Israel commemorates the 60th anniversary of its independence and founding, Arabs are marking the Nakba, or catastrophe, a term used to refer to the Arab defeat in 1948 and the consequent dispossession and displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Al Jazeera spoke to Middle Eastern youth on their views of the founding of Israel, the issue of an independent Palestinian nation, the state of the region 60 years after conflict broke out, and why the ideals of Arab nationalism have failed to rescue the Palestinian people.

Almuhannad Al-Hammadi, 23, government employee, Qatar

Al-Hammadi: Israeli occupation of Palestine alludes to Arab weakness. Palestine is a central issue of Arab solidarity [and] every speech must mention Palestine. The religious and historical significance makes it part of the ideology. It may never be factored out of the equation in its plea for Arab unity.

The fact that Palestine is still under Israeli occupation points to how weak so-called Arab solidarity really is.

Palestinian suffering has continued for 60 years and the Arabs are willing to do nothing.

If half the Arab nations are in a state of chaos, how may we speak about resolving the Palestinian issue or uniting the Arabs?

After 60 years of defeat, one sees that the term Arab nationalism is becoming a legend of the Nasser era, a fading dream. Nevertheless, I continue to strongly support the cause to unite Arabs, while most people from different age groups regard Arab nationalism as a dead hope.

Saher Isaac, 31, engineer, Israeli-Arab in Haifa

Isaac: Arabs should learn from the Jewish experience.

My father is from pre-1948 Palestine and he settled in what has now become the state of Israel where many Israeli-Arabs now reside.

Growing up, I spent a lot of time in the West Bank throwing stones at Israeli troops during the first intifada, just for fun.

Arabs think I am an Arab and Israelis think I am Israeli. When I speak Hebrew, people usually do not think I am an Arab.

Now, I am a part of the only Arab family in my neighbourhood in Haifa.

If you take a look at all the Arab states, they all speak Arabic and have the same traditions and I participate in this union of what has become of the Arab world.But if you take a look at Israel, their union is stronger. I would appreciate if Arabs could learn from the Jews who came from all over the world and in the span of 60 years managed to establish a state.

But when Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian president, came to power, Palestinians [he is, I think, alluding to the legendary corruption of Arafat and his minions - RS] started putting money in their pockets. I want Palestinians to be self-sufficient, but there is too much corruption going on that it makes me resent the Arab world.

I visit Bethlehem and parts of Israel maybe once or twice a month, and when I go back to Palestine, I feel ashamed because I know Palestinians can do better.

If the Jews who lived in the Middle East over 2000 years ago were able to leave the area and then come back to establish a state, then why can't the Palestinians create a state in a land that they already live in? Thus, I am forced to respect the Jewish people because they have done so much to become productive members of their own society, while Palestinians and their authority figures have done quite the opposite.

For instance, Arabs have oil and we could become world leaders and use such an important natural resource to our benefit, but that does not happen, so where is the Arab ideal in that? Arabs are always agreeing to disagree, just like the Arab league, it is a joke.

If anything, I think I am lucky that I live under Israeli occupation than another Arab country because I have my rights here, I am treated fairly here. I cannot say that I would have the same sort of freedom in the Arab world.

Mohamed Hassan El Tayeb, 24, student, Sudan

El Tayeb: Arabs passionately support the liberation of Palestine. Most Arabs devote a lot of interest to the Palestinian issue not only because they see the current status there as unjust but also because they are concerned about the suffering of fellow Arabs.

The Palestinian issue is without a doubt integral to Arab nationalism. Arabs almost unanimously support the Palestinian cause and passionately support Palestinian liberation.

Arab media across the board agree on how news from Palestine should be reported.

Whenever the Palestinian issue is on people's minds (as with the Gaza blockade, recently), there is an observed heightening of "Arabist" sentiments.

However, I believe that the contribution of the Palestinian issue towards strengthening the Arab ideal will decrease gradually as more and more Arab states "defect" from the standard Arab position towards the issue and recognise Israeli statehood.

Eventually, whenever the Israelis and the Palestinians arrive at some sort of two-state solution (sometime soon, I hope), the issue will cease to garner attention.

Hadeel Alaini, 23, Yemeni teacher living in Egypt

Alaini: I have always had mixed views on the Palestinian issue. As far as Palestine goes, it is an extremely complicated matter; I have always had mixed views on the topic.

I am not sure about how I feel. At first, I believed that the Palestinians had every right to each piece of land they claimed was theirs.

Now, I do not have faith in the Palestinian government and those in power who come across as incompetent because I do not believe they will be able to reclaim all Palestinian land. Or whatever bits and pieces of land the Israelis have left them.

In my heart, I believe they have a right to these lands, but they are stuck with those fragmented bits and pieces.

It is heartbreaking to see rich Arab countries competing in building the biggest malls, tallest buildings, and largest conference centres when Palestinians and Iraqis are dying. Perhaps that is why we are too busy for Arab nationalism.

Arab nationalism is our only hope, though. Young Arabs these days are scrambling to leave the region and doing everything in their power to get Western passports, but they are not the ones to blame.

It seems our governments are doing everything in their power to stand in our way and hinder any form of progress we attempt to make. Our governments need to realise that without the approval of their own people, they will never get anywhere.

Ruba Batniji, Palestinian law student in the US

Batinji: Arabs support Palestine only when convenient. Palestine has often been a divisive issue, but it need not be. The Arab nations have historically used Palestine as a rallying cry against Israel when it was convenient.

But when it became inconvenient, they failed to support the Palestinian cause in a genuine way.

If the Arab nations engage with the Palestinian issue in a way that is consistent with basic norms of justice and human rights, that can be a catalyst for positive change in the region.

However, the Palestinian issue is not the only issue facing the Arab world today.

There are issues of exploitative and corrupt elites, huge economic disparities, and a need for better systems of education and social welfare for the Arab World.

There is also the desire to resist negative external influences in the region in a way that does not cause further injustice or suffering, and that takes into account the long-term consequences of social action.

Although Palestinians seek solidarity with other Arab nations, that should not preclude those nations from working on their own problems.

The fact that the Palestinian issue takes precedent is but an indication of fundamental problems in the Arab world, which is that corrupt elites often use the Palestinian issue to further their own agendas rather than engage with the issue in a genuine way.

Israeli Independence: Looking Back and Looking Forward

Your gift to Israel at 60 needn't cost money.
Join the facebook Zionism cause today and invite 10 friends:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/causes/73516

Israeli Independence: Looking back and looking forward

08.05. 2008 http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000541.htmlOriginal content copyright by the author

Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com/

I saw an Israel Independence day celebration for the first time in 1958, Israel's tenth anniversary. It was quite a bit different from the slick, choreographed production of today, where soldiers in dress uniform formed impressive patterns that spell out Israel or form a Jewish star or the symbol of the state, and choirs and electric instrument bands played Euro-pop vulgarized versions of Zionist pioneering songs.

The 1958 ceremony was held in the amphitheater at Givat Ram, then in the process of becoming the new campus of the Hebrew University. Soldiers in dusty uniforms stood at attention for hours, some fainting in the sun, waiting for government officials who were, characteristically, several hours late. David Ben Gurion a Prime Minister in shirt sleeves, represented a government and a people whose attitude was symbolized by the reverse ethnic chic of his slightly beat up four year old Mercury "state car." His remarks may have been significant, but the public address system garbled them beyond recognition.

It was a military parade, displaying Israel's best and finest. The soldiers in their khaki "b" uniforms, those who hadn't fainted, had a determined look, but their drill left something to be desired. The military hardware on display consisted chiefly of refurbished third hand World War II Sherman tanks and French AMX-III anti-tank vehicles, which looked like baby tanks next to the "real" tanks. Only true believer Zionists could believe in the deterrent power of this army, despite the Sinai Campaign victory of 1956.

Only a few of us in the audience knew about the "textile plant" (the French-supplied nuclear reactor) that was already under construction in Dimona, a secret that we kept for many years. In 1958, Israel had a total population of slightly over two million - less than two million Jews.

Then as now, there were plenty of Arabs in the surrounding states, and then as now, most of them did not wish us well. Not a single Arab state had signed a peace treaty with Israel. Egypt had a huge army equipped with modern Soviet weapons. Egyptian President Nasser, the Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of those days, threatened Israel with destruction. Of the major powers, only the French were allies of Israel. The USSR was actively hostile, the British were aloof after the international imbroglio caused by the Sinai campaign, and the Americans continued the pro-Arab policies of the Eisenhower administration. Jerusalem was divided by barbed wire. Jews could not even visit the wailing wall. Diaspora Jews were largely indifferent to the existence of Israel. In the USSR, Jews were barely aware of it. In the United States, most Jews viewed Israel as a convenient repository for those of their brethren who were not fortunate enough or presentable enough to be worthy of American citizenship. Some new immigrants still lived in Maabarot slums, Israeli Arabs lived under a military administration. Israeli industry was virtually non-existent, and commerce consisted mostly of buying items for 4 cents and selling them for 2 cents at a one cent profit, the difference being made up by government subsidies. Just beneath the surface, the Lavon affair was eating away at the Israeli political establishment.

Nonetheless, almost nobody who witnessed that celebration would have expressed the slightest doubt about Israel's viability or Israeli determination. To be sure, there were always those who ridiculed the Zionist project from its inception, and they continued to express their doubts in 1958 and thereafter, as they had done before. An endless stream of Cassandra pronouncements has accompanied the Zionist movement and Israel from their inception: The Zionists could never get the Turks to relinquish Palestine, the Zionists could never get significant numbers of Jews to come to the country, the Jewish community in Palestine would be overwhelmed by the Arabs, the new state would be rent asunder by Ashkenazi-Sephardi divisions, Israel would be bankrupt by 1975... None of these prophecies ever came to pass, but that has never prevented so-called analysts from generating new ones.

Today, on the sixtieth anniversary of Israeli independence, there are, as usual, those who can "prove" that Israel's demise is imminent Arab demography, or low Jewish immigration and birth rates, the rise of radical Islam, Iran and its atomic bomb, corruption in the Israeli political establishment, the downfall of the IDF and indifference of Diaspora Jews can be, and are, cited as causes in the predicted inevitable downfall of Israel. The supposedly objective prediction of what will happen is usually confounded and confused with the moral judgment of what ought to happen. The reasons why Israel should not be supported can be adapted to changed circumstances. Fifty or sixty years ago it was argued that Israel should not be supported because it is too weak to survive - an "unviable client state." Now it seems that people like Jeffrey Goldberg, in the Atlantic, want people to infer that Israel should not be supported because it is too strong. It is moral to side with the underdog, you see... Just because the doomsayers have always been wrong in the past, doesn't mean they won't be right in the future, but somehow it doesn't seem likely.

The doomsayer articles have produced a number of replies that explain why they are wrong, notably the worthy effort of Caroline Glick, who is, for once, not insisting that the sky is falling. But words on paper will only convince those who want to be convinced. They will not change facts either way.

The important articles to write about Israel at 60 are neither self-congratulatory encomiums that list our numerous achievements, nor refutations of the Greek chorus of anti-Zionists that has accompanied the Zionist drama from its inception. The important articles to write are those that soberly examine the challenges and examine what Israel has to be doing in the next decades to survive. In this connection, I recommend, for example, Amnon Rubenstein's How to survive in a sea of rejection. We should also be constantly on the lookout for changes and favorable opportunities.

For our sixtieth anniversary, Israel has gotten several little gifts. The first is an astounding, if as yet isolated, reversal of European leftist antipathy to Israel expressed by German Linkspartei leader Gregor Gysi, who maintains that support for Israel must be an integral part of German policy, and that acquiescence in radical Islam is incompatible with progressive ideology. If this is more than the view of one man, it could signal a return of the historic bond beyond progressive opinion and Zionism. We must do everything possible to reach out to the left, who are our natural allies against Islamist reaction. A second gift, which went almost unheralded for some reason, is the rejection of divestment initiatives by the United Methodist Church. Several such motions were rejected unanimously in Legislative Committee and defeated by General Conference delegates voting on a special consent calendar. In the heyday of Intifadah stimulated anti-Zionism, just a few years ago, such divestment decisions, often reversed subsequently, were routine. Perhaps it would be better if these petitions and motions never happened, but every such defeat signals once again that attacks on the legitimacy of Israel are rejected by the US political mainstream.

Another gift is the still unanimous support for Israel that is declared again and again by US Presidential candidates, despite differences in their approach to the Middle East. Pro-Arab supporters of Barack Obama are beginning to complain that he "sold out" to the "Israel Lobby." Realistically, it doesn't seem likely that any major U.S. politician is going to turn their back on pro-US, democratic Israel, and favor reactionary and dictatorial anti-American Arab and Muslim regimes. That has less to do with the "Israel lobby" and the "Jewish vote" than with common sense and US interest.

None of these little gifts, nor the lavish praise that will be heaped on Israel by foreign dignitaries in honor of our sixtieth anniversary, should hide the real challenges and dangers ahead. But what matters is not what the destructive critics say, or the numbers of our enemies. There are plenty of threats and pitfalls. The important thing, as always, is to find the unexpected opportunities and innovative approaches that will allow us, again and again, to surprise ourselves and confound our critics. The Jewish people has been facing extinction from approximately 73 AD, and the Jewish commonwealth, when it existed, was always a fragile thing beset by enemies and subject to forces beyond its control.

The great advantage of the Zionist movement and the Jewish state is that they provide us with an organization and a physical basis to advance our cause and confront our enemies. As Ben Gurion once admonished, what matters more than what the doomsayers say, what always has mattered, is what we plan and what we do. That has only been true since there was a Zionist organization and an organized Jewish community in our own land. We have always faced "insurmountable" challenges. The doomsayers point out the challenges, but they miss the most important factor: What Israel gives us, for the first time in 2000 years, is a means of organizing our salvation and overcoming the problems.

Ami Isseroff

Original content is Copyright by the author 2008. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000541.htmlwhere your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to ZNN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only.